1. ' While the petitioner upon holding an enquiry was dismissed from service by the respondent No, 2, the learned Presiding Officer of the Vth Sindh Labour Court reinstated him in service with full back benefits, the, Labour Appellate Tribunal, however, setting aside that order and maintaining the dismissal. The facts of the case have been succinctly stated by the Appellate Tribunal in these words:-- "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 vent Olin and 40 bottles of 60 ml. Each which were unlabelled 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 pad ordered his reinstatement with full back benefits."
2. ' We have heard Choudhry Rashid Ahmed at some length, examining the enquiry proceedings which run into 187 pages (taking the benefit from Mr. Rashid's file), the report of the enquiry officer and the two orders of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
3. ' While the Labour Court has recorded an elaborate order, such order has largely discussed the contentions of the parties and concludes the matter in these words:--- "Having considered the argument of the parties on this point, I have come to the conclusion that the contentions raised by the learned Advocate for the applicant has legal substance in it.
4. Nonproduction/non-examination of the Enquiry Officer and more particularly Chowkidar Shah Zaman, before this Court, is fatal to the plea of the respondent that the charge of misconduct was proved. This Court, after going through the enquiry proceedings and the lacuna, pointed out above, has come to the conclusion that the enquiry report, holding the applicant guilty of the misconduct, is not based on reliable evidence and consequently, the dismissal order passed is not maintainable and is hereby set aside."
5. ' In reaching the foregoing conclusion and discarding the evidence produced from the side of the Management namely, Shah Zaman (Chowkidar at the gate who apprehended the 'petitioner), Gul Zaman and Lt.-Col. (Retd.) Mansoor Akbar and according absolute credence to the sole testimony/evidence of the petitioner, the factors which weighed with the learned Judge of the Labour Court were, firstly that Chowkidar Shah Zaman was motivated by malice against the petitioner and was not examined before the Labour Court at all. Another aspect of the matter lay in non-examination of the Enquiry Officer before the Court. Now as to the question of witness Shah Zaman being ill-disposed towards the petitioner, the matter was fully discussed by the Enquiry Officer (second Enquiry Officer who rendered the report) and the conclusion that the witness was not so ill-disposed as alleged seems to be clearly borne out by the enquiry proceedings. The rest of the evidence also was discarded at the level of the Labour Court without sufficient reasons. In so far as non-examination of the Enquiry Officer (first Enquiry Officer) is concerned, it does not seem to have been necessary because in the ultimate analysis, the enquiry was concluded and the report was submitted by another Enquiry Officer and Choudhry Rashid Ahmed at the Bar has fairly conceded before us that there has never been any grievance on the part of the petitioner against such second Enquiry Officer. We have also found that no objection at any stage of the proceedings was taken by the petitioner before the second Enquiry Officer to proceed in the matter as from such point of time at which the first Enquiry Officer had left off the proceedings. What is more seeing the enquiry proceedings we have noted that before the second Enquiry Officer the proceedings extended over several dates, where the matter was discussed threadbare, each person involved in the proceedings making a firm statement in his own words which was recorded verbatim by the Enquiry Officer. This part of the proceedings seems to have confirmed the earlier part thereof before the first Enquiry Officer. There, accordingly, does not seem to have been any requirement to produce the Enquiry Officer, who initially held the enquiry. We have also found that the petitioner has been taking somewhat inconsistent positions in the matter. In the first instance, at the time of his reply to the show-cause notice, he made allegations only against the Chowkidar who had apprehended him at the gate and said nothing whatsoever about the Management being motivated against him. Before the Labour Court while he produced and relied upon the show-cause notice and reply, the petitioner did not utter a single word in his affidavit in evidence against the Chowkidar who had apprehended him, the entire emphasis lying on his victimisation by the Management on account of Union activities. On the basis of the material that we have seen, we are convinced that the petitioner has neither been dealt with unfairly nor unlawfully.
6. ' Before parting with the case, we may point out that Choudhry Rashid Ahmed had urged before us that the Labour Appellate Tribunal wrongly recorded in its order that the petitioner had consented to the continuation of the proceedings before the second Enquiry Officer from the point where such proceedings were left off by the first such officer. We do not know whether such consent was in writing or not but seeing the record, as we have done, we find that the consent may well have been an implied one because during the several hearings which took place before the second Enquiry Officer and where the everybody was heard at length, the petitioner raised no objection whatsoever either for the continuation of the enquiry proceedings from where they were left off or about the validity of the earlier proceedings. Indeed, even at the time when the petitioner had sought the substitution of the Enquiry Officer, he did not simultaneously seek that the proceedings taken in the enquiry to date be also scrapped.
7. ' In view of the foregoing, we find no substance in this petition and dismiss it in limine.