DECISION ' This is an appeal directed against the order of the Sind Labour Court No, IV at Karachi, who had by his order, dated 1st June, 1983, reinstated the respondent with a direction that fresh enquiry be held.
2. The facts narrated in the domestic enquiry and the evidence recorded by the Labour Court are that the respondent, Altaf Hussain Awan was a Junior Sales Assistant, working in the Duty Free Shops Ltd. At Airport, Karachi. On 8th October, 1982, Altaf Hussain Awan was off duty and he was searched by the Martial Law team at the gate of the Airport. Three hundred U.S. Dollars in Travellers cheques were found inside the folder of the partly utilized ticket lying in his pocket and they were secured by the Martial Law authorities. The Martial Law Authorities then checked Duty Free Shop and made clarification from Mrs. Perveen Choudhry and one Rasheed Baloch. The Martial Law authorities handed over the case papers to the Manager Administration Duty Free Shops Ltd., who subsequently held an enquiry in which he was found guilty of commission of theft of the Travellers Cheques and was dismissed from service. The respondent, therefore, submitted a grievance petition to the Labour Court which took evidence of the witnesses and came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry held by the administration was not proper inasmuch as the basic report of the Martial Law team was neither produced in the enquiry proceedings nor the copy of the basic report was given to the respondent to prepare his defence. The evidence from the side of the appellants and the side of the respondent were recorded.
' The Labour Court, however, reinstated the respondent ordering fresh enquiry to give a fair chance to the respondent by bringing on record the original basic report of the Martial Law team. The Labour Court, however, considered domestic enquiry to be faulty against the principle of natural justice.
3. The arguments of Mr. Mir Muhammad Shaikh on behalf of the appellants and the arguments of Mr, M. L. Shahani for the respondent were heard by me.
4. Before, I advert to the arguments as submitted by the learned counsel, Mr. Mir Muhammad Shaikh, I would refer to the statement of the respondent in this case. He adhered to this statement which he submitted on 17th October, 1982, in response to his first show-cause notice, dated 12th October, 1982. The respondent in his statement submitted that there was no adequate arrangement of placing the Sales proceeds in the safe as the same was without lock. That the practice prevalent was that the sales people normally keep the big notes of sales proceeds in their pockets and at the time of handing over the charge to the incoming shift the same is handed over to them. He had kept these Travellers Cheques in his pocket which incidentally slipped into the folder of the partly utilized Air ticket and when he was free he checked all his pockets and could not find any Travellers Cheques. When he was stopped at the gate of the Airport he Was stopped by the Martial Law team, they recovered three hundred Dollars' Travelling Cheques from the folder of the partly utilized ticket. His statement is that he did not know that the Travellers Cheques got inside the ticket, therefore, he did not find them at the time of checking his pocket. He was not conscious that he committed any theft or fraud. He was himself amazed and surprised at this discovery as despite of his repeated searches of his pockets he could not find the Travellers Cheques. His surprise was, however, when the folder of the partly utilized Air Ticket was seen by the Martial Law team. He handed over the charge of cash of his shift to the incoming cashier short by 150 U.S. Dollars which he would have compensated on the next morning. This was the statement of respondent, Altaf Hussain.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court which tried this case was not having the territorial jurisdiction and that the Court acted without jurisdiction. His contention was that the Head Office of the administration was at Amir Khusro Road and, therefore, the Police Station of Bahadurabad should be taken to have territorial jurisdiction and hence the Labour Court No, V, Karachi, should have tried the case, whereas Karachi Airport itself is within the territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court No, IV, Karachi. The arguments are advanced by M. L. Shahani that both the Courts had the jurisdiction to try the grievance petition. He referred to a Judgment of Sind High Court in Appeal No, 66/82, decided on 25th October, 1982, in the case of Sind Alkalies Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court and others. The territorial jurisdiction of the Court cannot be challenged inasmuch as the above authority cannot be distinguished, and is applicable.
6. The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the respondent had confessed before the witnesses, namely, Mr. Perveen Choudhry and Rasheed Baloch. The evidence of Perveen Choudhry and Rasheed Baloch in the enquiry proceedings are perused by me and they do not aver that the respondent admitted his guilt before them. None from the Martial Law Authorities was examined and there is no question of the confession or admission by the respondent in this respect. But the fact is that the Travelling Cheques were found in search of the pocket of the respondent. This constitute the entire circumstance of the respondent. This is the major piece of evidence against the respondent. It needs to interpret the circumstances and his statement in this behalf ; whether we can find that he could be guilty of either theft or fraud. He was checked at the gate of the Airport. He said that he has not committed the theft. He searched his pocket at the time of handing over the charge but could not find the Traveller Cheques in his pocket. The misfortune was that these Travellers Cheques got incidentally within the folder of the partly utilized ticket. This was the entire misfortune and he himself was left to a surprise as to how these Travellers Cheques got into the folder of the ticket. His statement is quite plausible in view of the practice prevalent in the Duty Free Shops. The salesmen generally used to keep the Cheques in their pockets and they handed over the cheques at the time when their duty was over. The factum of theft in view of his statement also becomes doubtful although the cheques were secured from his pocket. It is well nigh possible that when he became conscious of the Travellers Cheques in his pocket he would have come back to the office and hand over the same to his incharge. That possibility cannot be ruled out. Even the Criminal Courts could have given him benefit of doubt.
7. The learned counsel has further referred me to PLD 1981 SC 225, where it was held that the requirement of second show cause notice nor supplying of the enquiry report can be part and parcel of the rules of natural justice. This authority is not applicable in the present case.
8. The learned counsel Mr. Mir Muhammad Shaikh has referred and to 1981 PLC 776, wherein it was held by this Tribunal that the copy of the statement of the witnesses supplied to the accused is not a require. Ment of natural justice-. In contradistinction, a number of other authorities exist which are submitted by Mr. M. L. Shahani in his arguments. In the case of Associated Electrical Industries (Pakistan) Ltd. Karachi v. Employees Union , wherein the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance No, III of 1960 was adverted to. Standing Order 13, paras. 4, 5 and 6 contemplated that the copies of the proceedings and the findings of the enquiry should be provided to the party or employee and giving right to the workman to defend the alleged misconduct. This was in a reference to Ordinance No, III of 1960, whereas the Standing Orders concerned in present case are Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The principle is the same that the employee or the worker is apprised of the allegation and the copies thereof may be provided to him. In this particular case, I find that the basic report i,e, the report of the Martial Law authorities was not proved, and that the copy of that report was not given to the respondent. In this view of the matter the laws of natural justice are violated. Although in evidence it has occurred that the basic report was read over to the respondent but he was not given the copy to prepare the defence and hence, he was prejudiced.
9. After hearing of the arguments of the learned counsel I feel that the respondent has given plausible explanation of his conduct of keeping the Travellers Cheques in his pocket and he could have been excused in the domestic enquiry. The basic report on which is built the entire edifice of the domestic enquiry, was not provided, and the respondent is deprived to prepare his defence appropriately. I, therefore, agree with the Labour Court and maintain his order to the extent of reinstating the respondent. So far the back benefits are concerned, he is entitled to all the back benefits. It has been emphasised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Martial Law authorities or any member of the tea could not be examined as the powers of the domestic enquiry were limited. Any how the respondent is, therefore, prejudiced and he could not prepare the defence. Therefore, no further or fresh enquiry, under the circumstances, is necessary. PLD 1973 Kar. 167