DECISION ' This appeal from the order of the Labour Court No, IV at Karachi, dated 2-5-1991, arises in the following circumstances.
2. The respondent was employed by the appellant as a `Lascar' in 1967. On the night between the 22nd and 23rd November, 1977 he was on duty as a "watchman" on "M.L. Talwar". At about the mid- night, the said launch was engulfed in fire and became almost a total wreck. The respondent was the only person on board the launch at the relevant time. He was served with a charge-sheet on 29-3-1978 "for being careless and negligent in performing duty which resulted in the loss of K.P.T.
Property (M.L. Talwar)". At the bottom of the charge-sheet there was a 'note': "Charge of allegation attached" which was not there, and could not have been simply there. The charge-sheet was withdrawn, and the next charge-sheet dated 3-6-1978 did not add much to what had been said earlier; being limited to the following words: "For carelessness and negligence in performance of duty as a result of which fire broke out on the night of 22nd and 23rd November, 1977 on launch M.L. "TALWAR" when she was lying at its mooring, causing extensive damage to the launch and financial loss to K.P.T."
' The respondent submitted explanation but enquiry was ordered which was conducted by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Iqbal Shareef. The latter after examining the witnesses and the respondent submitted the report inter alia with the following observation: "It appears that Sultan (the respondent) was reading the book under the light of the candle or temporary light on the night of the incident i,e, 22nd and 23rd November, 1977 on M.L. "TALWAR" and went to sleep and somehow or other the flame fell on the back seats and started fire. After that Sultan s/o Din Muhammad woke up and by that time the fire spread into the back portion of the launch and was beyond his control. Seeing this Sultan rushed to the front portion of the launch and started shouting. Soon after the engine room caught fire, ML-Purjosh approached the launch and started extinguishing the fire, started from the engine room, giving hardly any chance to the oil tank to heat up to the flash point of the oil."
' As a result of this report the appellant was dismissed from service.
3. After the due notices the respondent had presented a petition before the Labour Court. The case has got a chequered history going from the one Court to another and being dismissed on preliminary objections. Even the writ jurisdiction was invoked, wherein it was decided that the petitioner was a workman and therefore his application was maintainable by the Labour Court. As a result the appeal before the Tribunal was deemed to be pending.
4. The Tribunal after hearing the parties remanded the case to the Labour Court for disposal on merit. After this remand order, dated 21-1-1990, the applicant was recalled for cross-examination and witnesses were examined from the other side. The Labour Court allowed the petition reinstating the petitioner with full back benefits, as it was of the view that the proceedings of the enquiry held against the petitioner were not proper and also because he was not given opportunity to defend himself properly. It also found that as the signatory of the written reply had not come to the Witness. Box therefore the statement not having been verified on oath could not be taken into consideration.
5. Admittedly there is no eye-witness account at all in the matter. Mr. M. Aslam Butt, learned counsel for the appellant contended that circumstantial evidence could be mathematically precise and decisive and could be acted upon with more confidence than verbal testimony. There can be no quarrel with this proposition.
6. Having said this much, let us now look to the evidence in the case. The conclusions reached by the Deputy Chief Engineer who submitted the report have been reproduced earlier. The report further shows that one Tariq Majeed had been seen near about the vicinity at the time of the incident. Admittedly the duty hours of the respondent started from mid-night, to be precise at 00- 15 hours. One Muhammad Aslam was examined at the enquiry. He was on duty as Watchman upto 10-00 p.m. And had walked down the launch in question at 10-45 p.m. As stated by him. So the falling of the candle of the lantern or for that matter the throwing of the cigarette butt carelessly on the launch, need not necessarily be attributed to the respondent.
7. Muhammad Aslam had also stated at the Enquiry that the respondent was not given to smoking, but was an occasional puffer only. The cigarette butt or the flame of a candle will take time to spread on a launch. It is not a barn full of hay which is so ignited by the very touch of fire to it. It would have remained smouldering for quite some time, before the flame started leaping up. Under the circumstances how can it be said affirmatively or with certitude one way or the other? A situation like this raises grave doubts, and guilt will never be driven home against somebody on the basis of circumstantial evidence unless and until the only inference to be drawn leads to the guilt of an accused. There is nothing here against the respondent beyond suspicion. That is not and cannot be a substitute for proof. There being room for doubt he has to be exonerated. The fact that there was a substantial loss to the appellant, does not need any scapegoat. The report of Port Officer during the enquiry revealed that there was no facility of fire extinguishers available on the launch. This is what he had said after inspection.
8. Under the circumstances no exception can be taken to the finding of the Labour Court, though for different reason I will, therefore, uphold the order and dismiss the appeal. The respondent will be entitled to full back benefits as ordered earlier.