DECISION ' This appeal arises from the order of the Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi allowing the grievance petition of respondent Muhammad Hameed and reinstating him in service with full back benefits.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent was working as driver on a Pak Suzuki Car in their company. The respondent was found to have concealed two cartons of steering columns belonging to the company in the car driven by him. He was given a charge-sheet on 26-3-1994 and a domestic enquiry was held against him. The driver took the plea that the cartons had been concealed in his car by another driver but that could not absolve him from liability, having been found in possession of stolen property. He was found guilty on the charge of misconduct and he was dismissed from service. The learned Labour Court held that the prosecution evidence should have been weighed against the defence. .Evidence and the case decided on whatever side the scales were heavy but this has not been done. Therefore, the enquiry is defective. The enquiry being defective the dismissal was found to be illegal.
3. I have heard Mr. Nishat Warsi for the driver and Syed Qamaruddin Hassan for Suzuki Company.
4. Syed Qamaruddin Hassan has argued that the possession of these two stolen columns was dishonest since they were found from under the driver's seat which is not the usual place for carrying motor parts and the driver must have been aware of these heavy articles being under the seat, when they were detected at the gate. It has on the other hand been argued by Mr. Nishat Warsi on behalf of the respondent that there is evidence that Suzuki Car in question had been brought to the gate by another driver, who stopped the Suzuki at the gate, locked it and gave the keys of the car to the present respondent. The respondent had, therefore, no knowledge that the car of which he was holding the key contained stolen property. The stolen property was detected by the respondent himself and he was the person who informed the guard on duty at the gate that the said property appeared to have been loaded in the car. This fact was stated in the defence evidence. This guard was examined by the Enquiry Officer and no such fact was admitted by him in his cross-examination. The guard was not examined before the Labour Court. This type of defence, therefore, appears to be unconvincing and fantastic.
5. It has next been argued that the Suzuki Company were themselves sending out these motor parts for disposal by concealing them under the seats in order to save octroi duty. Octroi duty is usually about 1% and the company will not take all this trouble to save this petty amount. Had that been so the company would not have dismissed the driver who was doing their job and associating with them in such underhand methods.
6. I can find no substance in the defence theory put forward by the defence and I accordingly set aside the finding and order of reinstatement and back benefits passed by the lower Court and allow this appeal. The amount of back benefits if any deposited may be refunded to Pak Suzuki Company.