This appeal arises from the decision dated 5th May, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, where by the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.
2. The allegation against the appellant was that he had stolen the stepni of the scooter of Abdul Qaddus, another employee of the respon--dent, from the scooter-stand maintained by the respondent. The appellant is alleged to have returned the stepni to its owner Abdul Qaddus alter confessing his guilt. The evidence of confession and recovery of stolen property was produced during the enquiry. The appellant had attended the enquiry on 5th February, 1974, but did not appear on the following day. He did not ask for adjournment. He had given resignation but sent a telegram that the case brought by him in the Court of Assistant Deputy Commissioner under sections 384, 348, 342 and 392 against the Security Officer etc., so till its decision no action be taken upon his resigna--tion, but he did not ask for adjournment of the enquiry, nor obtained any stay order for stopping the holding of the enquiry.. He, therefore, should have continued to participate in the enquiry. He was served with a second show-cause notice to which he gave reply Exh. R.
10. The recovery of the stolen stepni was duly proved during the enquiry. The criminal case instituted by him was dismissed. The revision also failed before the Addi--tional Sessions Judge. There was no previous enmity of Hazrat Khan and Abdul Qaddus etc., so why they should have gone to the extent of falsely implicating the appellant of theft. The enquiry officer, therefore, rightly believed their evidence. The charge of theft was duly proved.
3. This is true that the stepni did not belong to the respondent and the act of the appellant did not fall under clause (b) of Standing Order 15 (3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders] Ordinance, 1968, but the list of misconducts given in Standing Order 15 (3j not being exhaustive, for other acts which amount to misconduct, can also be taken notice of by the employer. Theft took place within the premises of the respondent establishment and from the possession of the care-taker deputed by the respondent to guard the vehicles of the employees. If no action had been taken, the appellant was likely to have stolen the accessories of or even scooters etc., in future. No one would like to retain such persons in service. The act, therefore, amounted to actionable misconduct.
4. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.