DECISION ' This appeal arises from the order of the learned Vth Sindh Labour Court whereby the grievance petition of respondent Ahmed' Shall a Junior Mechanic for reinstatement was allowed.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent was appointed in the service of M/s. Glaxo Laboratories as Junior Mechanic-cum-Helper. He was found by the Security Guard leaving the factory with a hardboard keg. The Security Guard wanted to examine the contents of that keg but the respondent left the keg at the gate and ran away. The matter was reported to the Management on the next day. The keg was found to contain 2 bottles of ventolin and 40 bottles of 60 ml. Each which were unlabeled with some loose cotton. The respondent was issued a charge-sheet which was replied. The Enquiry Officer was appointed. Practically at the middle of the enquiry the Union raised the objection that the enquiry Was not being fairly conducted. Another Enquiry Officer was then appointed. He acted on the evidence already recorded with the consent of the parties and concluded the enquiry after examining the Security Guard and other witnesses. The respondent was found guilty and he was dismissed from service on 4th December, 1989. The management was then served with the grievance notice and thereafter the grievance petition was filed before the Labour Court. The Labour Court at the end of the proceedings recorded the decision that the Management had neither examined the Security Guard before the Labour Court nor examined the Enquiry Officer, therefore, the enquiry was defective and the Labour Court accordingly absolved the respondent of the charges of theft and ordered his reinstatement with full back benefits. Against this order M/s. Glaxo Laboratories have preferred this appeal. It has been argued by Mr. Rehan Aqeel learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant that he was not bound to examine the Security Guard and the Enquiry Officer in the course of the proceedings under section 25-A of the I.R.O. That the respondent had been caught practically red handed taking out the medicines while he left them and ran away. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and no prejudice of any sort was caused to the respondent. All that the respondent has stated is that he was victimised on account of union activities but mere mention of this allegation cannot vitiate the proceedings. That is the convenient defence taken in such proceedings by all the workers. The particular union activity in which the worker was involved should have been proved. The burden was on the respondent and the burden cannot be shifted by mere allegation. It has also been alleged that the Security Guard had some enmity with the respondent but it is hard to believe that the case of this nature would be fabricated by the Security Guard to take revenge against the worker.
3. I accordingly find that the respondent worker was rightly dismissed after a domestic enquiry by the Management and there is hardly any reason for this Tribunal to find fault with it. The decision of the Labour Court is therefore set aside and the appeal of the Management is allowed.