' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.--This petition is directed against the order dated 1-6-1983 and judgment dated 20-3-1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No, IV, Karachi and by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi respectively.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that respondent No, 1 was working as a Sales Assistant in one of the Duty Free Shops situated at the Karachi Airport in the Arrival Lounge.
It seems that on 8-10-1982 at about 11-30 p.m. When respondent No, 1 was leaving the Airport he was intercepted by a Martial Law Team, headed by one Colonel Abdullah and on his personal search 300 U.S. Dollars in the form of Travellers Cheques were found in the pockets of respondent No, 1 concealed in the domestic ticket. Thereupon the Martial Law Team examined Mr. Rashid Balouch, the incharge of the shift in question and also Mrs. Parveen Chaudhary, who was over all incharge of the aforesaid Duty Free Shop. After that respondent No, 1 was issued a show-cause notice dated 12-10-1982 by the petitioner, which was replied to by him by his reply dated 17-10-1982.
Upon the receipt of the above reply the petitioner was not satisfied with the explanation given by respondent No, 1 and, therefore, they appointed Mr. Jamil U. Ahmad as the Enquiry Officer for the domestic enquiry. He examined Mr. Rashid Balouch and Mrs. Perveen Chaudhry. After that he submitted his report recommending dismissal of the respondent No, 1, in pursuance whereof respondent No, 1 was dismissed by an order dated 9-12-1982. Being aggrieved by the dismissal order, respondent No, 1 after serving a grievance petition filed an application under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 which application was resisted by the present petitioner. However, the learned Labour Court No, IV, Karachi after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties by the aforesaid order remanded the case for fresh enquiry in the following terms: "In the result I direct fresh enquiry, if the Management so desire to hold fresh enquiry, and to examine the Officer of Inspection Team who detected the Dollars and then give the findings. As regards the benefits, concern the petitioner should be given of the pay because if the petitioner has not worked but at the same time it is also the fault of the Management, the further back benefits will be adjustable after the result of the enquiry. He is reinstated, till the result of enquiry".
' The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order filed appeal No, KAR-182/83, which was not only dismissed by the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, but it also modified the order by granting full back benefits to respondent No, 1, and also directed that no purpose would be served in holding fresh enquiry. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above two impugned orders, has filed the present petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Mir Muhammad Sheikh learned counsel for the petitioner, who has vehemently urged that the domestic Enquiry Officer was competent to record the finding on the question whether respondent No, 1 had committed misconduct or not and that neither the Labour Court nor the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal was justified in interfering with the above finding of fact, particularly when the same was supported by material on record. He has further submitted that once respondent No, 1 admitted the factum of taking 300 U.S. Dollars in the form of Travellers Cheque in his pocket while leaving for his home after the duty hours, the burden was shifted heavily on him to explain the reason.
It will suffice to observe that it is by now well-settled principle of law that a Labour Court is competent to go behind the domestic enquiry conducted in a labour matter and to ascertain whether the same was recorded after complying with the requirement of law. In the instant case the Labour Court concluded that respondent No, 1 was not given fair opportunity to defend himself and, therefore, it remanded the case in the above terms contained in the above operative portion of the impugned order.
4. In our view, the above order seems to be in consonance with law which does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. However, the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal apparently has exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying the order in favour of respondent No, 1, though no cross-appeal was filed by him against the order of the Labour Court.
We would, therefore, declare the above order of the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal as being in excess of jurisdiction.
' We would, therefore, allow the above petition partially in the above terms and would maintain the order of the learned Labour Court. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.