1. DECISION ' An appeal has been preferred by the Manager, Co-operative Textile Mills Limited Khanewal, hereinafter mentioned as appellant-Managment against the order dated 9th September 1974 directing the re-instatement of Muhammad Jan workman after his dismissal on account of misconduct. It was alleged against him that on the night between 23rd/24th November, 1974, at about one a.m. He committed criminal trepass in the house of his coworker named. Sultan and being eye-witness by definite person was complained against to the Management whereupon, an enquiry was held, which resulted in dismissal of the respondent.
2. ' There is no denying the fact that a proper charge sheet was given to the respondent regarding the misconduct alleged against him. The witnesses were examined, show-cause notices were given to him and he was dismissed on the basis of report of the Enquiry Officer duly submitted to the appellant Management. The respondent was directed to be re-instated by the learned lower Court on the ground that a cognizable offence of cirminal trespass at night being alleged against the respondent no report was lodged with the police and on that score the appellant Management had no authority to deal with such heinous offence. But the view adopted by it cannot be sustained it is undeniable right of the employer to enquire into the misconduct of a workman irrespective of the criminal action to be taken by the State. I am supported in this behalf by the judgment given by Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Jhelan Singh v. D. C. Ghatak and others. In this case misconduct of the workman involved Criminal Offence congnizable by the Police, but neither a report was lodged nor any action was taken by the Police. It was held that the domestic enquiry and the discipline action taken by the employer in the circumstances is not vitiated thereby on account of non-1 cognizance by the Police. In a similar case in Sind Tobacco Company Hyderabad v. Zamiruddin it was held that an employer, was entitled to enquire into the misconduct of his employee, his right being distinguished from the right of the State to take cognizance of the same misconduct. In another case permission for dismissal of the workman was granted in Satar Match Works' case.
3. According to the facts of this case misconduct was committed by the workman outside Factory premises and office hours for which an application for permission to dismiss two workers was made to the Labour Court. It was held that if the behaviour impaired reputation of the concerned Management it was justified in treating it as being subversive of the discipline and that the nature of the act was more important than the time and place of the incident. The same view was given by the Industrial Appellate Tribunal West Pakistan, in Ahmad v. Bawani Violine Textile Mills Limited, Karachi.
4. ' In the light of the above authorities the action taken by the appellant-Management on the basis of a regular domestic enquiry could not be excepted. Under the circumstances the impugned order being set side and the appeal being accepted, the order of dismissal passed by the appellant-Management is upheld. 1962 PLC 1394 1974 PLC Note 48 at p, 26 1962 PLC 1000 1969 PLC 789