DECISION ' These 2 appeals are directed against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No,IV at Karachi, dated 14-11-1988, whereby he ordered reinstatement of the workman, Abdul Rahim, without back benefits. The employer, Messrs Beecham Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi, hereinafter called the employer has filed Appeal No,KAR-419/1988 against the order of reinstatement, whereas, the workman has filed Appeal No,KAR-390/1988 against the order denying him back benefits. I propose to dispose of both these appeals by this single decision.
2. I have heard Mr.Rehan Aqeei, learned counsel for the employer and Mr.Khadim Hussain, learned Advocate for the workman and also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The admitted facts appear to be that the workman after performing overtime duty on 1-1-1986, was leaving factory premises of the employer. As the door was locked, he called Security Guard Muhammad Aman, who searched the scooter on which the workman was leaving factory premises. In the box which was attached to the scooter, the Security Guard found 8.2 K,G. Of Penbritin Capsules, approximately valued at Rs,27,830. He detained the workman and when one Awwal Baz came, he sent him to call the Personnel Supervisor, Shafiuddin and informed him of the incident. Mr.Shafiuddin recorded the statement of the Security Guard, Muhammad Aman as well as of the workman. The workman was charge-sheeted and in the domestic enquiry, he was found guilty. Consequently he was dismissed, vide order, dated 26-8-1988. After serving grievance notice upon the employer, the workman filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court which was decided in the terms, mentioned above. The employer resisted the grievance petition on the ground that the workman was caught red-handed and the enquiry held was proper and impartial and that the charge was proved against the workman, therefore, he was rightly dismissed from service.
4. The workman examined himself before the learned Labour Court, herein, he admitted that the Security Guard did find Penbritin Capsules from his scooter, but contended that the same were foisted upon him. The employer had examined the enquiry officer Abid Hussain Personnel Officer Shujat Hussain and Personnel Supervisor, Shafiuddin.
5. The learned Labour Court has rightly held that the enquiry held by the enquiry officer was fair and impartial as all the opportunities were given to the workman to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses against him and also to lead evidence in defence. In fact, the workman had examined 2 witnesses in defence. The enquiry proceedings have also been duly signed by the workman. The enquiry officer was examined before the learned Labour Court and in his cross-examination nothing was suggested to indicate that his conduct in the enquiry was in any way unfair or partial. I entirely agree with the findings of the learned Labour Court that the enquiry was fair and impartial and the allegations of the workman that the enquiry was not fair and impartial, have no substance.
6. It appears that the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court while dealing with the grievance petition of the workman was impressed by the fact that there was no specific evidence to show that the Penbritin Capsules, in question, were stolen from the factory. He has referred to the admissions in cross-examination by Mr.Shujat Hussain that the workman worked in the workshop, where no Penbritin Capsules were kept and that he did not receive any report with regard to the shortage of the capsules, either from the Store or from the Production Department. The learned Presiding Officer appears to have assessed the evidence against the respondent as if he was being prosecuted under section 411, P.P.C. Wherein before an accused person could be found guilty, it is mandatory to prove that the property was stolen. However, the standard of proof required in a criminal proceeding is different from standard of proof required in the domestic enquiry. In the criminal proceeding, the prosecution is bound to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt as the question of liberty of a citizen is involved. Whereas, in a domestic enquiry, the evidence required is such on which a prudent person can reasonably base his conclusion that the property recovered from the accused person was stolen property or had been dishonestly received by him.
7. In the instant case, as pointed above, the property in question, had admittedly been secured from the scooter of the workman, but he claimed that the same was foisted upon him. There is no iota of evidence to show that any person had foisted property upon him. The learned Presiding Officer had drawn this inference from the admission of the 2 witnesses of the employer, namely, Shujat Hussain and Abid Hussain in the cross-examination, that there was a quarrel between the workman and one Khalilur Rehman, an employee of the Personnel Department on 17-4-1987. It may be pointed that this Khalilur Rehman is not a witness against the workman either before the enquiry officer or before the learned Labour Court. It has also not come on record as to how he could influence Muhammad Aman or other witnesses of the employer. This quarrel, if any, between Khalilur Rehman and the workman had occurred about 8 months prior to the incident. As such, to draw an inference that because of this quarrel, the property had been foisted upon the workman would, in my opinion, be far-fetched and improbable as there is no such evidence to support such an inference.
8. The evidence on record shows that the Penbritin Capsules, which according to the show-cause notice, are the property of the employer who manufactures the same, were found from the scooter driven by the workman while leaving the factory premises. The only explanation that he has given for this recovery from his scooter is that same was foisted upon him which is not substantiated by any evidence or circumstances on record. The value of the property recovered from the Scooter is quite substantial and there is nothing on record to show that Khalilur Rehman is a man of substance to waste about Rs,27,000 in order to implicate the workman or that the nature of the quarrel between him and the workman was such that he could go to that extent. The normal presumption under the circumstances would be that the workman was taking out the Penbritin Capsules, a product of the employer, from the factory premises without any authority. Such an action can only be considered as a theft or dishonesty in connection with the employer's property which is a misconduct as described under Standing Order 15(3)(b) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1%8.
9. It may be pointed that Muhammad Aman has stated before the enquiry officer that the workman had-admitted before him that he had committed the mistake and that he will not commit the same in future. This statement of Muhammad Aman has not been shaken in his cross- examination. R.M. Shafiuddin had recorded statement of the workman at the spot where also the workman had admitted the same. The workman had denied to have made such statement and stated that it was obtained by force, though he admitted to have signed it. There is nothing on record to show that this statement was obtained from the workman by Shafiuddin under duress nor is there any reason as to why he should put pressure upon the workman to give such statement. Mr.Rehan Aqeel, the learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case of Raja Javed Akhtar v. Executive Vice-President, United Bank Ltd. And others, reported in 1978 SCMR 212, wherein it has been observed, as under:- "According to Mr.Haque, the enquiry conducted by the second respondent's enquiry officer was in gross violation of the principle of natural justice, therefore, it was illegal and void. But the High Court rejected this plea on two grounds. The first was that the petitioner had participated in the enquiry by cross-examining the second respondent's witness and by examining himself. The second ground was that the petitioner had signed a statement that he had no further evidence to give.
Now as it was for the petitioner to decide whether he had any evidence to produce, the statement signed by him that he did not wish to produce evidence was prima facie fatal to learned counsel's submissions, therefore, Mr.Haque attempted to get round the concession thus made by the petitioner by invoking the rules of natural justice. But he could not explain how the rules of natural justice had been violated, because it was not his case that the petitioner had not signed the statement that he did not wish to produce evidence. Nor did learned counsel contend that the petitioner had signed this statement under duress. Indeed such a plea would have been ridiculous and it is significant that although the enquiry officer was examined in the Junior Labour Court, learned counsel did not even refer us to this witness's evidence. Now it was in these circumstances, that the High Court held that the enquiry conducted by the second respondent's enquiry officer was in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, because it had been held in a fair and reasonable manner, and no exception whatever can be taken to this finding. Nor is learned counsel's attempt to invoke the rules of natural justice of any assistance to the petitioner's case, the moreso, as even at this stage the petitioner cannot explain why he had illegally kept with himself for more than six months monies belonging to a bank namely the second respondent. In these circumstances, it is obvious that the petitioner did not produce evidence before the enquiry officer because there was no way by which he could explain his illegal retention of monies which belonged to the second respondent."
10. In the instant case also, the workman has not been able to explain as to how this property had come to be found in the box of his Scooter and who had put it, if it was foisted upon him, either before the enquiry officer or before the learned Labour Court. I have already held that the domestic enquiry was fair and impartial. The possession of huge quantity of goods manufactured by the employer is admitted by and proved against the respondent. This possession is not properly explained.
11. Considering all the facts discussed above, in my opinion, the charge against the workman stood proved in the domestic enquiry for which he was rightly punished by the employers by order of dismissal and there was no valid ground for the learned Labour Court to interfere with said order. I accordingly set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and restore the order of dismissal of the workman. Both the appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.