DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned order, dated 11-5-1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case that the appellant was a permanent employee of the respondent Mills since 17-5-1971, and was working as Sanitary Supervisor. On 14-6-1984, he was charge-sheeted for having committed theft of the employers' property, under the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. As, his reply to the charge-sheet was not enquiry was conducted against him and in consequence of its findings, the appellant was dismissed from service on 29-8-1984. Thereafter, the appellant submitted his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court
3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition and questioned the maintainability of the grievance petition on the ground that as the appellant was a Sanitary Inspector belonging to supervisory staff and getting monthly emoluments of more than Rs. 800, therefore, he was not a 'workman' under the Law. On merits, it was the case of the respondent Mills, the charge of the theft of the pipes of the respondent ' Mills was fully established in a fairly and properly held domestic enquiry.
4. The appellant filed his affidavit-in-evidence and was cross-examined by the respondent Mills.
Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent Mills who were duly cross-examined by the appellant. Then, the learned Labour Court has dismissed the grievance, petition of the appellant, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. S. Fashat Hussain Rizvi, the learned Advocate ; for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Ghani, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent Mills and have perused the record and proceedings of the case. Admittedly, there is no dispute about the status of the appellant as a 'workman' and the maintainability of his present grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969. I, therefore, hold it accordingly, as held by the Labour Court . The only point to be determined in the present appeal is whether the charge of theft was lawfully proved against the appellant through specific and direct evidence or not? There is nothing on record to show that any eye-witness of the theft by the appellant was produced by the respondent Mills, either before the inquiry Officer or before the learned Labour Court . The witnesses produced by the respondent Mills had only deposed that they were removing the pipes from the factory premises and were throwing them on the side of the Colony, on the directions or instigation of the appellant. The witness, namely, Zafar Welder had deposed only that the sweepers had come to him to cut the pipes into pieces to be used for the construction of a Shed over the pump. Even, this Welder is not an eye-witness of the theft, either by the appellant or by any other person. The evidence of Muhammad Ramzan, Security Supervisor is to the extent that when he was informed that the pipes were being removed from the factory premises to the area of the Colony by the Sweepers and when he visited the scene, the Sweepers were caught red-handed and at that time, the appellant had also reached at the spot. This witness too, had failed to depose that the appellant was also caught red-handed in the alleged theft. There is an admitted position that both the Sweepers were caught red-handed and on an interrogation, they had stated that they were removing the pipes on a direction of the appellant and that neither a theft case against these Sweepers was registered by the respondent Mills with the area police, nor they were dismissed from service and the only appellant was picked and chosen to be removed from his services. Mr. Fashat Hussain Rizvi, the learned Advocate for the appellant has contended that the appellant had un-blemished service record but due to some personal grudge, he was involved in a false and concocted case of theft through the sweepers and was then very illegally and mala fidely discriminated and victimized. There is no direct evidence of theft against the appellant. The respondent mills has miserably failed to produce any such evidence against the appellant. I, therefore, hold that under these circumstances the dismissal of the appellant from his services by the respondent mills cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
6. For the above reasons, I would set aside the impugned order and would allow this appeal. The appellant is directed to be reinstated) in service with full back benefits forthwith.
M. Y. H./908/Lb.S.