DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court whereby the petition under section 25-A, seeking reinstatement in se came to be dismissed. The other petitioner Mohsin Saeed has not come in appeal. It has arisen in the following circumstances.
2. The petitioner was working as a Driver with the respondents since 1977. He was served with a charge-sheet on 20-1-1988 which reads as under: "While they were on duty in `C' shift at Karachi Aviation Station on 30-12-1987, went outside the premises in Company's Jeep at about 19-00 hours. Thereafter, Vehicle No. 31 containing 25868 liters fuel .JP-1/Jet A-1 was received at 15-00 hours at 30-12-1987 at the start of the Shift Operations, out of which 4337 liters were delivered to PIA f;Flight No. PK-336 at about 18-40 hours, leaving a balance of 21531 liters in the vehicle. At about 19-30 hours, Vehicle No. 31 was taken out of Airport premises unauthorisedly by Mr. Naseebuddin, Driver,through Wide Bodyanger ASF Check Post and re-entered the Airport at about 21-30 hours. Whereas Mohsin Saeed re-entered the Airport premises through Wide Body Hanger ASF Check Post while driving the Company's Jeep with a punctured tyre at about 21-35 hours and parked it near the washing by unauthorisedly. At about 22-30 hours, Mohsin Saeed drove Service No. 10 to Bay 12-A for ' replenishment in Vehicle No. 31 driven by Naseebuddin without permission of an officer, and approximately 4600 liters were drawn in the Vehicle No. 31 from Eastern Joint Hydrant Depot (EJHD), but neither the figure of the fuel received was passed on to EJHD nor a receipt was obtained from EJHD. The quantity was also not reported by Mohsin Saeed in Stock Register and Shift Log Book with ulterior motives. When the next incoming shift took the physical inventory of the total stock/product including Vehicle No. 31, 14150 liters fuel was found in the vehicle, instead of 26131 liters, thereby detecting a netshortage of 11981 liters fuel in the vehicle.
The position reads as under:-'
(1)Stock in Vehicle No. 31 at start of Shift at 15-00 hours25868 liters (2)Less quantity delivered to PIA Flight 3364337 liters (3)Balance left21531 liters (4)Quantity unauthorisedly replenished from other sources1f4600 liters (5)Total quantity26131 liters (6)Actual stock received at start of incoming shift at 23-00 hours14150 liters (7)Net shortage 11981 liters Mohsin Saeed and Naseebuddin in connivance with each other had stolen 11981 liters of fuel valued at Rs. 68,945 approximately, with a view to achieve wrongful gains."
The petitioner had replied to the same on 24-1-1988 and since it was not found to be satisfactory, an enquiry letter was issued on 4-2-1988. The Enquiry Committee constituted, included ZA. Baluch and Khan Amir. They had examined a number of persons, namely Habib Akhtar Zuberi, Babur Zaman, Ziaul Haq, Muhammad Rauf, Attaur Rehman Soomro and Khalid Idris. The petitioner had produced Mohsin Saeed as a defence witness.
3. Agreeing with the enquiry report, wherein the petitioner was found to be guilty, he came to be dismissed on 9-6-1988. The grievance notice was sent on 10-7-1988 and thereafter came the petition before the Labour Court.
4. The petition came to be resisted by the respondents. It was stated that the entries in the Shift Log Book at the beginning and the end of the shift coupled with the fact that the petitioner had taken the bouzer outside the Airport Area clearly established the guilt of the petitioner. The other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner also came to be denied.
5. The petitioner examined himself while Zainul Abedeen and Khan Amir appeared on behalf of the respondents.
6. The Labour Court found the material issues against the petitioner and dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal.
7. The appellant had admittedly been retained for over-time duties from B to C Shift. The bouzer was all along in his possession. The opening balance has already been detailed in the charge and need not be detailed here. At the end of the shift of Vadia when again the jet fuel was measured by Ziaul Haq a shortage of 7,381 liters was found. All along the vehicle was in the custody of the appellant. It is also in evidence from Khalid Idris that in between he had taken out the vehicle and the jeep through the Wide Body Hanger. Khalid Idris, who is a Sub-Inspector of ASF had enquired from him as to where he was taking the vehicles and was told that the same were being taken out with the permission of the Shift Incharge.
8. There can be no two opinions that the shortage was to be explained by the appellant and no other person. It is true that there is no eye-witness account forthcoming, but the circumstances are irrefutable.
9. The enquiry proceedings were also very fair. The appellant was present with his co-worker and the witnesses were cross-examined. His initials are thereon all the papers. It is true that he wanted to examine some witnesses in his defence but on his own showing before the Enquiry Committee, Safdar Ali Shah, Ali and Ismail had allegedly been pressurised and refused to come forward. He had, however, examined Mohsin Saeed, the co-accused. So, it cannot remotely be suggested that he was denied any opportunity to put forward his case.
10. His contention that he had come to harm because Habib Akhtar Zuberi was nursing a grudge against him and that too because of his involvement in the union activities is just a cock and bull story. It is not any body's case that he was or had ever been even an office-bearer of the Union. The findings of the Enquiry Committee, which led to the order of dismissal, I are to my mind not open to any exception.
11. Under the circumstances I will uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.