DECISION The appellant, who was employed in the respondent company as a general worker, was dismissed from service with effect from 2nd July, 1979 on the charge of committing theft of a packet containing five cigarettes from the factory of the respondent-Company. The appellant challenged the orders of his dismissal before the learned Labour Court which has dismissed his grievance petition on the grounds, firstly, that it was not maintainable as the appellant had accepted his due in full and final payment and has hence ceased to be an aggrieved worker, and secondly, that the charge of theft has been fully established against the appellant in a fair and impartial enquiry.
Aggrieved by this decision the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. I have heard Mr. Wasiullah Qareshi, who appeared for the appellant, and Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghant, who represented the respondent-Company. Mr. Wasinllah Qureshi assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court on the following grounds :-
(i) Whether the grievance petition of the appellant was not maintainable on account of the alleged receipt by him of his dues in full and final settlement ?
(ii) Whether the charge of theft has been established against the appellant ?
(iii) Whether the domestic enquiry against the appellant was ordered by a competent authority ?
(iv) Whether the Enquiry Officer was an impartial person and competent to.Hold the enquiry ?
(v) Whether the appellant was afforded reasonable opportunity to make his defence against the charges levelled ?
3, In respect of his first contention, Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi did not dispute that the appellant had signed the petty cash voucher which appears at page 213 of the record of the learned Labour Court. The signature of the appellant is on a revenue receipt. The voucher recited that a sum of Rs, 110.60 only has been received by Mohammad Siddique (the appellant) on account of 14 days wages in full and final settlement of his dues as per Memo. No, ADMN/BF/2460, dated 2nd July, 1979.
The Memo. In question was also produced before the learned Labour Court and is at page 31 of the record of the learned Labour Court. The said memo, is the order of dismissal of the appellant. It further directs the appellant to collect his dues on any working day. It would, thus, appear that the appellant had collected his due full and final settlement of his claim, in compliance with the directions in the order of his dismissal. Having received his dues in full and final settlement of his claim the appellant ceased to be an aggrieved worker for the purposes of section 25-A, I. R. 0., and accordingly, was not entitled to maintain a grievance petition against his dismissal as held by a Division Bench of the Karachi High Court in the case of Futtehally Chemicals V. Majeed Baig . A similar view was taken by this Tribunal in the case reported in 1974 PLC Note 146 at p. 79 and in Appeal No, KAR-585 of 1980, decided on 3rd December, 1980. Mr. Wasiullah submitted that the voucher in question, though it purports to be payment in full and final settlement of the appellant's claim, is only in respect of 14 days wages to which the appellant was even otherwise entitled. It has, however, not been shown that the appellant was entitled to any other dues apart from the 14 days wages for which he was paid under the voucher. Ordinarily, for receiving wages, the appellant could not be expected to sign a voucher in full and final settlement of his claim. Since the appellant has voluntarily signed the voucher in question admitting payment of his dues in full and B final settlement, he would appear to have no further claim against the respondent company and hence cannot be considered to be an aggrieved workman.
5. In respect of his second contention, it was submitted by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi that there was only the bare word of the watchman at the gate, Chand Mohammad, that on search of the appellant at the gate a packet of K-2 containing 5 cigarettes was secured from him while the contention of the appellant all along was that he had given the cigarettes to Chand Mohammad for safe-keeping and to be returned to him as he was going out under the direction of the Production Manager to bring tea from outside the factory premises, It was further argued by Mr. Wasiullab Qureshi that the evidence of Chand Mohammad cannot be accepted as admittedly a dispute between him and the appellant a few days earlier had taken place. Now, if there had been only the evidence of Chand Mohammad in this behalf, a genuine doubt in regard to the allegation of theft would perhaps be reasonable. However, in addition to the evidence of Chand Mohammad, there Is evidence of the Security Officer, Lakyari. According to the testimony given by this witness before the Enquiry Officer, Chowkidar Chand Mohammad had immediately reported to him about the recovery by him on search of the appellant of a packet containing 5 K-2 cigarettes. The witness has further testified that when the appellant returned from outside to the factory he made enquiry from him whereupon the appellant admitted his fault and asked for forgiveness saying that he was a poor man. It may also be mentioned that the appellant had appended his signature to the report by Chand Mohammad that a packet of stolen cigarettes was recovered from the appellant. There is, thus, substantial evidence in support of the evidence of Chand Mohammad and this evidence was rightly believed by both the Enquiry Officer and the learned Labour Court. The value of the stolen property may be small but since the offence was great it was for the respondent establishment to determine the quantum of punishment.
5. It was next contended by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi that the Enquiry Officer was not appointed by the competent authority, namely the Factory Manager, but was appointed by the Production Manager, as is evident from the note of the charge sheet, which has been signed by the production Manager.
However, this, objection was not raised by the appellant in his reply to the charge sheet, the second show cause notice, the grievance notice or even in his grievance petition. Furthermore, it was not even urged before the learned Labour Court. As such, the appellant cannot be allowed to urge a1 point before this Tribunal which he had not raised before the learned Labour Court, specially as the raising of this point at this late stage denies the respondent establishment from adducing evidence to show that in fact the Enquiry Officer was appointed with the approval of the Factory Manager.
6. It was next urged by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi that since admittedly the report by the Security Officer regarding the alleged theft of cigarettes by the appellant was made to the Personnel Manager, Mr. Mazheruddin, and further according to the appellant he had reported the incident to the Production Manager in the presence of the Personnel Manager, the latter cannot be deemed to be impartial and competent to have been appointed, as Enquiry Officer. Mr. Mazheruddin admittedly had no personal knowledge of the incident nor was he directly connected with the allegation of theft made against the appellant. A person is not disqualified from being appointed as Enquiry Officer merely because in the course of his official duties a report of the incident is made to him or is brought to his notice.
7. It was finally urged by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi that the appellant was only given 24 hours time to reply to the second show-cause notice an though he made a request in writing for the period to be extended by 14 days, without his being intimated that his request for extension of time had been rejected, he was dismissed from service. The appellant had admittedly participated in the domestic enquiry in which he was charged with committing theft of the cigarettes from the factory of the respondent company. He was also supplied with a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report which carefully examines and gives in detail the evidence of each witness examined in the enquiry.
Furthermore, it is an admitted position that the appellant was given a personal hearing before the Factory Manager on 1st July 1979. There is nothing to suggest that in his personal hearing the appellant had repeated his request for extension of time in making reply to the second show cause notice or he had complained that the time given to him for the reply is inadequate. En the circumstances I am of the view that the appellant was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that I would concur in the decision taken by the learned Labour Court and would, accordingly. Dismiss the appeal. 1973 PLC 297