This is an appeal under section 16 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, against an order of the learned Chairman of the Second West Pakistan Industrial Court, Karachi, dated 14th June, 1968. The impugned order was passed on an application under section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance), challenging the order of the District Manager, Government Transport Service, Hyderabad, whereby he was dismissed on 7th March, 1967, from service. The facts briefly put are these.
2. The appellant was employed as a Conductor by the Government Transport Service, Hyderabad.
The appellant was an office-bearer of the Government Transport Service Employees Association, which was a registered Union. The appellant was charge-sheeted on 12th October 1966. It was alleged that he had rubbed the entries regarding the destinations and fare amount in the T. T. 2 (Way Bills). In this way he had altered the figures of amount into smaller ones and thus caused a loss to the Organization in the sum of Rs. 1,680.48. The appellant denied the allegations. He stated that along with the amount, which he deposited, he also gave copies of T. T. 2 and R. P. T. Book (Road Passenger Ticket Book). This book was checked by the Cashier and the Audit Clerk, who did not discover any alteration or interpolations in the Way Bills- The Audit Clerk, on the other hand, has given his reek that T. T. 2 was checked and found correct. He. contended that he had been involved in the case because of enmity with one Muhammad Bachhal, a Duty Clerk in the Government Transport Service.
3. The District Manager appointed Mr. Arz Muhammad Abro, as Enquiry Officer, who found the charge against the appellant proved. The District Manager agreed with the finding and dismissed the appellant on 7th March 1967.
4: The appellant challenged the order of the District Manager, on the ground that he could not be dismissed being an office-bearer of the Union, without the permission of the industrial Court, as an industrial dispute between the Management and the Union was pending before the Industrial Court at the time when he was dismissed from service. In fact, it is said that the District Manager on 17th February 1967, did order that an application to that effect be made to the Indus--trial Court. Before the application could be made a forged letter, it is alleged, on the Union's Form dated March 1, 1967, signed by five of the office-bearers of the Union, was sent to the District Manager that the appellant had been removed from the Membership of the Working Committee of the Union, Thereafter, the District Manager dismissed the appellant on 7th March 1967.
5. The learned Chairman of the Industrial Court held that the appellant had been removed from the Membership of the Working Committee of the Union and that the domestic enquiry was fair and impartial.
6. Mr. Was:ullah Qureshi, the learned Representative for the appellant contended that the appellant continued to be a Member of the Working Committee of the Union. In this connection he submitted that no meeting as alleged by the five signatories of the letter conveying that the appellant had been removed from the Membership, was held on 1st March 1967. He relied on the statement of Zafar Ahmad Jafri, Unit Secretary of the Union. Zafar Ahmad stated that no meeting of the Members of the Union was held at his residence as alleged in the letter of 1st March 1967 and that he had not signed the resolution removing the appellant from the Membership of the Working Committee of the Union. It is true that Zafar Ahmad has so stated. On the face of it, afar Ahmad is interested in the appellant. Zafar Ahmad has verified the signatures of the five Office-bearers of the Union. He also admits that he came to know about the removal of the appellant from the office of the Membership of the - Working Committee after the appellant made ' an application to the Industrial Court. It is surprising indeed that the appellant did not protest about his removal from the Membership of the Working Committee to any higher authority. He did not complain even to the Secretary of the Union, Zafar Ahmad. The appellant except bare denial that there will no meeting of the Members of the Union on 1st March, 1967 does not say as to why the five office-bearers of the Union would make out a false document against the appellant He does not allege any enmity against the five office-bearers of the Union. The appellant was removed from the office on the ground that he had been transferred from Sanghar, to Hyderabad. The appellant did not deny that .he had not been transferred from Sanghar to Hyderabad. The five office---bearers who have signed the letter of 1st March 1967, have nothing to gain by making out a false letter. I would a with the finding of the learned Chairman of the Industrial Court that the appellant was no longer an office-bearer of the Union on the date that he was dismissed from service.
7. It was next contended that the appellant did not make any alteration in the figures of the amounts received by him in the various T. T.
2. It was submitted that if he had made any alteration the same could have been noticed by the Cashier and the Audit Clerk. There is not much force in this contention. All the various documents, in which the appel--lant is said to have changed the amounts, are written in pencil I have seen these documents. The rubbing has been done very carefully. This appeal came before me on 14th January 1969, when to my naked eye it did not appear that any of the figures had been rubbed and then re-written. On 31st January 1969, the Management had brought a magnifying glass. With the magnifying glass the rubbing of the figures was quite clear and also that there bad b.-en overwriting. The Audit Clerk and the Cashier are not expected to verify T. T. 2 by magnifying glass. It would appear from the statement of Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Khan Lodhi, Audit Officer, before the Enquiry Officer that ten per cent. of T. T. 2, is checked thoroughly by the Audit Branch. The Audit Branch discovered the interpo--lation on thorough checking. At any rate, there is nothing on the record to show that the Duty Clerk, against whom- the appellant has alleged enmity, could win over the Audit Branch and others to falsely implicate the appellant.
8. It was also contended that the Management has failed to produce the R. P. T. Book. It could be verified from the same whether the said documents have been forged or not. There is no force in this contention. The prosecution was satisfied by producing the documents that are said to have been forged. The appellant, if he so desired that he had not committed any forgery, he could have himself summon the R. P. T. Book from the Management. At any rate, the appellant himself could produce a copy of the R. P. T. which remains in his possession. He did not do so. This circumstances goes against the appellant.
9. For the reasons given above. I uphold the order of the learned Chairman of the Industrial Court and dismiss the appeal.