DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellants, Pakistan Railways against the impugned order, dated 13- 10-1983, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur and who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, Abdul Razzak Chachar.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was working as Guard in the appellant Railways and was posted at Rohri Railway Station under the control of the appellants. On 13-8-1981, when the respondent was on duty as Guard on Train No. 2604 going from Rohri to Kotri, at Bandhi Station, five wagons were loaded with Bhoosa as per orders of the Control Office Sukkur, conveyed to him through Station Master Bandhi. That on 1-10-1981, i.e. After 48 days from the date of 13-8-1981, he was served with a charge-sheet by Assistant Transportation Officer-II, Pakistan Railways, Sukkur, alleging against him that he had unauthorizedly loaded the five wagons at Bandhi Station. That the respondent replied to this charge-sheet, but, the Assistant Transportation Officer-II; Pakistan Railways Sukkur, the appellant No.3 herein, without holding any domestic enquiry and providing him an opportunity to defend his case, awarded him punishment by imposing penalty of W.I.T. For two years, vide letter, dated 18-4-1982. A departmental appeal against the imposition of this punishment was also rejected by the appellant, vide their letter, dated 9-8-1982. Hence, the respondent had submitted a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur, which was allowed.
3. The case of the appellants before the Labour Court was that the Guard Incharge of the train is bound to confirm loading, unloading, attachment or detachment of wagons from Section Controller on duty and is bound to receive personal message with number from Section Controller.
Further, that the Guard Incharge is not supposed to work on the verbal or written directions of the Station Master and that the Station Master Bandhi Station had issued the respondent a false memo. For which he had been punished adequately. That the respondent was given full opportunity to defend himself and that the punishment was awarded to him after proper consideration. The appellants had denied to have received the grievance notice served by the respondent.
4. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Manzar Alam, Advocate for the respondent and have perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is argued by Mr. Manzar Alam, Advocate, for the respondent that he had loaded the five wagons on the message of the Control Office, Sukkur, conveyed to him through the Station Master Bandhi, vide Exh. 1/A on record, therefore, he cannot be held responsible for the irregular or unauthorised loading of the wagons and if at all it was a false memo. Then, the Station Master, Bandhi should have been held responsible for it and not the respondent. In this regard, Mr. Manzar Alam has referred to me the cross-examination of the appellants' witness in his affidavit-in--- evidence, Exh.4, wherein he has admitted that the respondent in his defence had produced the authority of loading wagons and attaching one wagon to the train, in question, which was issued by the Station Master Bandhi. Further, it is admitted by the witness that the Control Office issues a message to the Station Master for loading, unloading, attachment and detachment of the wagons.
Therefore, it is clear that the Control Office used to issue messages to the concerned Station Master, who used to convey the same to the concerned Guard Incharge of the train and others, for loading and unloading, attaching or detaching the wagons to the Goods Train. The same procedure was adopted in the present case: Under these circumstances, the respondent cannot be held responsible for any misconduct.
5. It is further contended on behalf of the respondent that no departmental enquiry was held in his case and no opportunity .Was awarded. It is admitted on behalf of the witness of the appellants, in his cross-examination, Exh.4, an enquiry was conducted by the enquiry office on 12-9-1981, and thereafter, a charge-sheet Exh.l/B was issued to the respondent on 1-10-1981, which was replied by him on 18-11-1981, vide Exh.l/C. It is further clearly admitted by the appellants' witness that no enquiry was held after 18-11-1981 and even, if it was held on 18-11-1981, then, it was without notice to the respondent. In view of this position, I, therefore, hold that if any enquiry, held on 12-9-1981 before the issuance of a charge-sheet, dated 1-10-1981 of any such notice to the respondent in this behalf, it cannot be held a proper and lawful domestic enquiry in accordance with the principle of natural justice, but, just 'to put a cart before the horse'. Thus, not maintainable.
6. In view of the Exhs.l/J, 1/K, 1/L and 1/M on the record, I hold that the respondent had served the grievance notice upon the appellants properly and reasonably.
7. For the above-stated reasons, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is hereby maintained. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.