' The appeal is directed against the decision, dated 14-10-1998, having been rendered by the learned Labour Court, Rawalpindi, accepting the grievance petition of the employees, Safdar Hussain Shah, filed under section 25-A,.Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
2. He was a watchman or Chowkidar and had allegedly stolen away bundles of cigarettes from the Production Department, after sunset on 21-12-1997. The same had actually been thrown away outside the boundary wall of the factory, close to the Generator Room, it was asserted by the management. Head Watchman Mr. Binyamin had witnessed the incident and even commanded the accused official to refrain from so doing. Safdar Hussain allegedly took exception to Mr. Binyamin's interference in the matter, quarrelled with him and threatened him with dire consequences.
3. When, however, the incident was reported to the management, Safdar Hussain was charge- sheeted, and Mr. V.A. Warsi conducted the enquiry. He submitted his report, holding Safdar Hussain to be guilty of the charge, and on the basis of the Enquiry Officer's report the Factory Manager dismissed Safdar Hussain from service.
4. Unfortunately, such departmental enquiries are initiated by the management and are conducted by the members of the staff, and it is seldom that the view-point of the subordinate or the workman is realistically appraised and he is equitably dealt with. More often than not the charge or the allegations, for commission of which the accused official is arraigned is upheld, so that he loses his service or incurs any other penalty of serious nature. Interests and demands of justice, equity and fairplay warrant that such enquiries should be entrusted to other establishment or to clean, impartial and honest officers of the Labour Department. I have formed this opinion after having come across countless enquiries, having been held by the members of the establishments concerned, during more than four years' period that I have functioned as Chairman of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, at the apex of the hierarchy of labour forums. I wish, something could be done to correct this unwholesome practice and to do away with this malady.
5. Beyond any manner of doubt, Safdar Hussain, being a Chowkidar, could be categorised as a workman, and it has been so pronounced in a number of rulings by superior Courts, as also this Tribunal, and the learned Labour Court has rightly referred to 1994 PLC 497, in that regard. I am not prepared to lend ears to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant concern that having been dismissed from service the workman could not invoke the aid of the Labour Laws in his favour, by having recourse to a labour forum. It was, of course, an individual dispute, but the misfortune of a workman commences, the moment he is ousted from service, in consequence of a show-cause notice and a charge-sheet issued to him, followed by an enquiry, initiated in order to establish the correctness of the accusation made, result of which has seldom been found to be in favour of the poor worker. What else the Labour Courts, as Courts of first instance, and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, as Court of appeal, are meant for, if they are debarred from entertaining and adjudicating upon disputes and episodes of this nature, which the workmen frequently are made to face, and the result, more often than not, as already said, goes against the down trodden class of the workmen, in the course of domestic enquiries. By fiction of law, the matter that has come before a Labour Court for examination and adjudication may be deemed to be an industrial dispute, even otherwise.
6. It is a matter of common sense that if the Head Watchman had seen or noticed the Chowkidar collecting the cigarettes, in an unauthorized manner, and giving fling to the same across the boundary wall, he was supposed and required to have intercepted and prevented the Chowkidar from doing all that. If, at all, he could not succeed in intervention, he should have immediately gone outside and collected the stock and preserved it as "case property", for its production before the factory management. Nothing of the sort was, however, done and no endeavour was made by the Head Watchman or any other member of the Security Staff to catch hold of the Chowkidar, together with the stock of the cigarettes, and produce him instantly before the Factory Manager or any other responsible officer, having authority in the matter. I have no reason to differ with the observation made at the finding recorded by the learned lower Court to the effect that the charge of theft levelled against the official had remained unproved, as the stolen cigarettes had not been recovered, and it is not known where had the same disappeared. Again, if physical beating had been administered by the accused to the Head Watchman, and he had sustained certain injuries in the process, he was expected to have gone to some doctor for bandage and treatment. The medico-legal report or at least the prescription of the doctor should have been brought on record; but it seems that the complainant did not get himself medically examined, and resultantly the allegation made by him that an assault had been made on him by the accused official, thus, also remained unestablished.
7. There is another aspect of the matter. No criminal case was registered; and it will not be denied that the allegation of oral character, which the Head Watchman had levelled against the Chowkidar, in this case, could be levelled against anybody at any time, but sitting as a Court no credence could be given to the 'blame' in question, by either the Labour Court or this Tribunal. I would endorse the inference drawn by the Court below to the effect that the management had failed to bring home the charge against the accused, even indirectly. It was indeed a case of no evidence. The adverse action taken against the official, thus, was tainted with mala fides and an element of vengeance. Official's ouster from service, on the basis of such an imaginary and unproved insinuation, could as such not be termed as justifiable and sustainable in law and equity.
7. The learned lower Court's decision is affirmed, and the appeal being bereft of all force, is hereby dismissed with costs.