DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order, dated 29-1-1991; passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad; whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Bashir Awan, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. NA. Talpur, the learned Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The 'appellant was admittedly a workman employed with the respondents. On 7-12-1989; he issued a Gate Pass for 4 pieces of chipboard in the name of Muhammad Din showing in the Gate Pass that they were for use in the workers Club, but, direcrted Muhammad Din to leave the chipboards at his house. However, the Security Supervisor Muhammad Ramzan and a Chowkidar secured the said chipboard alongwith Muhammad Din from the house of the appellant. On 10-12- 1989, the appellant was charge-sheeted under Standing Order 15(3)(b) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, for theft and dishonesty in respect of the Employers' property. In the domestic enquiry, he was found guilty and, therefore, his services were terminated vide order, dated 30-1-1990. After serving the grievance notice upon the respondents the appellant filed grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, before the learned Labour Court.
4. It is an admitted fact that on the above date while acting as Sanitary Inspector, the appellant did issue Gate Pass for 4 pieces of salvaged scrapped chipboard which he gave to Muhammad Din Labourer, for taking out of the factory for utilization in the Workers Club where the children of the Mills employees were taking Deeni Taleem. The only question that would determine the alleged misconduct of the appellant would be whether he had asked Muhammad Din to take the chipboard to the Workers Club or he had asked him to take the chipboard to his house. It is also admitted that the chipboard' were secured from the house of the appellant in his absence while there was no male member present in his house. The appellant in his reply to the show-cause notice has alleged that he had asked Muhammad Din to take chipboard to Workers Club's premises which was also used for the religious education of the children of the workers. He further said that Muhammad Din placed the chipboard in his house saying that these were meant for Workers' Club and he will shift them there later on and that after a while he came back to his house and took away the chipboards. Muhammad Din who is main witness, was examined before the Enquiry Officer. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that the appellant had asked him to take the 4 pieces of chipboard to his house; but, in his cross-examination to the appellant, Muhammad Din had admitted that he had told the watchman that he was taking the chipboard to Workers'
Club arid when Muhammad Ramzan Duty Supervisor Security had asked him, he had told him that he had left the chipboard in the house of the accused/appellant, as per his orders.
5. Thus, the only evidence against the appellant is that of Muhammad Din. Muhammad Din admittedly misguided the Gateman and Security Guard by telling them that he was taking the chipboards to the Workers Club. This puts Muhammad Din in the category of accomplices. He would also be deemed to be a party to the misconduct, if any, alleged to hve been committed by the appellant and thus his evidence requires corroboration in order to meet the requirements of the natural justice. The only corroboration is that the chipboards admittedly were secured from the house of the appellant. Again, admittedly the appellant was not present at the house at the time nor he had any opportunity to go to the house before the recovery because the same were recovered immediately after the delivery in the house of the appellant. This corroboration is a weak corroboration of the evidence of Muhammad Din. The evidence becomes more suspicious in view of the admission of Captain Mahmood who had admitted before the Enquiry Officer that Amir Hamza, watchman had a quarrel with the accused on 5-12-1989. It may be pointed that the present incident is said to have taken place on 7-12-1989 and Amir Hamza was one of the prosecution witnesses examined before the Enquiry Officer.
6. The Enquiry Officer, Mr. Ghulam Mustafa had admitted in the cross-examination in the Labour Court that after submission of the enquiry report, there were some alterations and changes made in the enquiry report. This admission makes the enquiry report suspicious. Moreso there is another admission of the Enquiry Officer in the cross-examination, that he was not sure if the allegation that the appellant wanted the property for his own use was brought on record through evidence. The termination order passed on the report of such an Enquiry Officer which report was subsequently admittedly altered and changed is not tenable and is liable to be set aside.
7. The next question to be considered is whether a fresh enquiry be ordered on the same charges.
The matter has been lingering on for more than 1-1/2 years and the amount of chipboards, allegedly attempted to have been misappropriated by the appellant is not more than Rs,200. He has already suffered a lot. Under the circumstances, I set aside the impuned order and order the reinstatement of the appellant in service, but would allow him only 50% (fifty per cent.) back benefits. Order to be implemented within one month. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.