' This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question the order dated 19th August, 1978 of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the decision dated 30th August, 1976 of the Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, whereby the application of petitioner for re-instatement in the service of respondent was dismissed.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition, as per record, are that the petitioner was working as Dispenser with the respondent factory since 1969. It is alleged that at 4.30 p. m. On 30th August, 1974, he was caught red-handed at the respondent's factory gate while carrying 54 items of medicines in his bag. The medicines included contraceptives, vitamin and multivitamin tablets and injections. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 31st August, 1974. He submitted his reply dated 10th September, 1974, in which he did not deny the recovery of medicines and other items from him but took up the plea that on the day of occurrence he had to attend female patients outside the factory as the female patients could not personally attend the factory dispensary for want of proper arrangements and their cases were attended to at their houses during and after the duty hours. He also took up the plea that the management wanted to victimise him because he was the General Secretary of the Union and two days before the occurrence he had filed a petition in the Labour Court against the management with regard to the supply of atta and also on 30th August, 1974 in another case. The reply of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory and inquiry was ordered into the whole affair by the respondent-employer. The inquiry officer found him guilty. In consequence, he was dismissed from service on 30th October, 1974.. He challenged the dismissal order before. The Labour Court, by means of a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Court vide its decision dated 30th August, 1976, after appreciating the evidence on record, recorded a finding of fact that out of 54 items recovered from the bag of the petitioner, only 8 items were emergency medicines and that it was not a case of violation of rules regarding medical aid simpliciter but the charge of stealing medicines was fully proved in the inquiry conducted by the employer.
' Notwithstanding this finding, the Labour Court ordered re-instatement of the petitioner on account of certain technical flaws in the inquiry proceedings to the effect that the order of dismissal did not contain any date, the copies of the inquiry proceedings and the inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner, no personal hearing was afforded and no second show-cause notice was issued. It was opined that all these omissions might not have caused prejudice to the petitioner but they were essential requirements of law. Accordingly, the respondent-employer was permitted to hold a fresh inquiry from where it had become defective and the question of back benefits was made dependent on the result of that inquiry. In consequence, the petitioner was reinstated, the employer provided him an opportunity of being heard and after supplying copy of inquiry report and service of second show-cause notice, he was again dismissed from service on 29th October, 1976. The petitioner did not challenge this order before the Labour Court and instead filed an appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal against the decision dated 30th August, 1976 of the Labour Court claiming back benefits inter alia on the ground that `the charge of theft had not been established against him. The Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 12th February, 1977 and recorded a finding after reappraisal of evidence that charge of theft was duly proved and the supplying of inquiry proceedings and second show-cause notice was not the requirement of law. The petitioner challenged this order by means of Writ Petition No, 1200 of 1977.
This writ petition was accepted and the case was remanded to the Appellate Tribunal to reconsider as to whether the petitioner had been victimized on account of his having been elected as General Secretary of the Employees Union against the wishes of the respondent company defeating their candidate and also to examine as to whether it was a case of theft or violation of the rules. In pursuance of the remand order the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal vide judgment dated 19th August, 1978 recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner was guilty of theft and the plea of victimization was not fully proved.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while passing the impugned order, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal has misread the record in holding that the plea of victimization was not proved. It is further submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal in para. 16 of the impugned judgment are self-contradictory, inasmuch as, on one hand it was held that the plea with regard to mala fide and victimization was never raised by the petitioner before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal or before the Labour Court, however, on the other hand it was held that the petitioner stated in para. 2 of his petition under section 25-A of the Ordinance ,that the management of the industry in his anti-union campaign had issued the charge-sheet to the petitioner and it was a clear case of victimization. There is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The tenor of the impugned order when read in its entirety clearly shows that the Tribunal after conscious application of mind recorded a finding of fact that the plea of victimization had not been established on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any misreading of oral or documentary evidence.The point raised by .Him in fact relates to appreciation of evidence which cannot be gone into in these proceedings. Furthermore out of Court. The petitioner has failed to give any explanation why the contra54 items recovered from the petitioner only 8 medicines were required for ceptives and other items not concerned with emergency medical aid emergency medical aid as per finding of fact recorded by the Labour were taken outside the factory. In the circumstances, it is difficult to hold that of Labour Appellate Tribunal passed the impugned order in violation of the remand order passed by this Court. The learned Tribunal passed the impugned order in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction. The findings of the learned Tribunal are based on facts and appreciation of evidence on record, which cannot be interfered with in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
' In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.