' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 11-12-1993 whereby accepting the writ petition filed by the respondents, orders of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal directing the petitioner's re-instatement in service have been set aside.
2. Petitioner, an Assistant in Habib Bank Limited, was posted in the Gardee Square Branch, Lahore when he was charge-sheeted for un-authorisedly receiving electricity bills from one Muhammad Akbar and misappropriating an amount of Rs,833.78. This was followed by a departmental enquiry in which the petitioner was, found guilty of the charge and was ultimately dismissed from service on 31-2-1983. Petitioner challenged his dismissal in a grievance petition filed before the Labour Court under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969. Labour Court after recording the evidence adduced by the parties accepted the grievance petition, set aside the order of the petitioner's dismissal and directed his re-instatement in service with back benefits vide order dated 25-4-1984. The Labour Court held that the charge-sheet was issued by an incompetent authority and so was the order of petitioner's dismissal. It was also held that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not proved during the inquiry. On appeal filed by the respondent/employer, learned Labour Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the Labour Court to the extent that it directed the petitioner's re- instatement in service but declined to grant back benefits to the petitioner. Still dissatisfied, the respondent invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court with the result aforementioned. The learned Judge in the High Court held that the findings recorded by the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal that the charge-sheet was not issued by the competent Authority "are against the provisions of Staff Rules and evidence on record " On merits of the case, it was observed by the learned Judge that the Courts below failed to take into account the statement of the Manager of the branch and some other material factors noted in para. 7 of the impugned judgment. The learned Judge also observed that after admitting the receipt of the amount, it was for the petitioner to explain its adjustment. The onus was very heavy on him which he failed to, discharge. The learned Judge held "The bare production of original electricity bills C-H and is sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondent No, 1." With these findings/observation, the learned Judge set aside the orders of the Courts below and dismissed the petitioner's grievance petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has contended that the learned Judge in the High Court was not justified to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction after proper appraisal of all the relevant material on the record and particularly when the findings were not shown to suffer from misreading of any material evidence. It is further contended that the learned Judge when exercising Constitutional jurisdiction could not re-appreciate the evidence and record his own findings which could only be done in appellate jurisdiction. In the A submission of the learned counsel if the learned Judge was of the view that some material evidence has not been considered by the Courts below which had the violative effect on the findings recorded by them, the only proper course was to remand the case to the Court below for recording fresh findings after considering the material earlier omitted.
4. The contentions raised by the learned counsel need consideration. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted.
5. It is admitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner has not so far been put back in service. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to suspend the operation of the impugned judgment of the High Court. It is, however, directed that the appeal after completion be heard after the long vacations of this year.