Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. Kar. 628 of 1983, decided on 1st December, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Dismissal for misconduct of theft‑‑Evidence of theft produced by establishment not contradicted by defence evidence in domestic enquiry‑‑Factum of misconduct by theft, held, would stand proved where evidence of theft could not be shaken in cross‑examination by employee and evidence in defence failed to contradict factum of theft‑‑Transcription of evidence of witnesses into English would not make enquiry to be improper‑‑Appellate Tribunal declined to set aside order of dismissal in appellate jurisdiction in view of such order being based on properly conducted and unbiased enquiry.

Ashraf Khan for Appellant.

M.A. Khan and Masood Ahmad Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 1^st December, 1985.

This appeal is directed against the order of IInd Sind Labour Court at Karachi, dated 31‑10‑1983.

2. The facts pertaining to this appeal are that on 11‑11‑1981, Muhammad Akbar the Darban was standing on his duty when the appellant, Muhammad Anwar of Engineering Department came and he was carrying with him a waterproof paper envelope and he was asked to show the contents of the envelope, which he refused saying that it is ordinary envelope containing soap and duster. One Muhammad Aslam, who was standing alongwith Darban Muhammad Akbar asked him if there was nothing objectionable, he shall not be hesitant to show the envelope. Ultimately, he showed the envelope. There was one G.I. Sheet and red‑colour foreign cigarette packet in which there were Player's Gold Leaf cigarettes. After recovery of these articles, he was taken to Gate and reported the matter to Mr. Matloob, who again took Muhammad Anwar to Mr. Muhammad Saeed, Factory Production Manager. A charge sheet was given to him of misconduct of theft. A domestic enquiry was held and he was ultimately dismissed. The appellant filed the grievance petition under section 25‑A , I. R. O., 1969.

2. The stand taken by the respondents, namely, Messrs Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited, is that the enquiry was fair and proper and in accordance with law. He was found guilty for theft and accordingly he was dismissed. He made applications for copies after the decision of the domestic enquiry was already taken and 'he was given the copies of the enquiry proceedings.

4. The appellant filed his affidavit in evidence and was cross examined. On behalf of the respondents, Altafur Rehman Khan, Personal Officer gave affidavit in evidence and was duly cross‑examined.

5. I have heard the representatives of the parties and have gone through the impugned order.

6. The contentions of the representative of the appellant are that the charge‑sheet contained false facts and secondly, the enquiry was not properly held and that the enquiry was held in English which the appellant did not understand. Mr. Altafur Rehman Khan, the Enquiry Officer has stated that he examined the witnesses who gave their evidence in Urdu which was transcribed in English in the enquiry and the Urdu was easy and quite understanable to the appellant. As regards the findings of the 9 cigarette and G.I. plate, there is enough evidence and the fact of theft is proved. According to the statement of the appellant, the cigarettes were foisted on him and the sheet which was found was useless scrap, he picked out from the scraping dump. In the domestic enquiry, three defence witnesses were examined by the appellant who only said that the appellant was a person of good character and they did not find any dishonesty on his part. But he failed to ask them as to who foisted 9 cigarettes. I have gone through the‑enquiry proceedings. Appellant, Muhammad Anwar first avoided to have search of the envelope but subsequently, he gave the envelope for the search when the incriminating articles were found and he was produced before Muhammad Saeed, Factory Production Manager. I have no doubt that these cigarettes and G.I. Sheet were found from the possession of the appellant. He was, therefore, dismissed. As regards his contention that the enquiry was held in English and he did not understand English. The evidence of Altafur Rehman is clear on the point that the witnesses A gave evidence in Urdu which was merely transcribed in English. There was no interpolation. He was given proper chance of cross‑examination and after perusing the cross‑examination nothing worthwhile in the favour of the appellant came out.

7. The impugned order has given the reason tG1 discard the objection raised by the appellant. I am in agreement with these reasons and find no substance in the appeal.

8. In the end, I dismiss this appeal.

A. A. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.