Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Messrs PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD HAROON
1988 P L C 955
1988 P L C 955
[Karachi High Court]
Before Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Abdul Razzak A. Thahim, JJ
Messrs PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY
Versus
MUHAMMAD HAROON and others
Constitutional Petition No. 1405 of 1987.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑ Dismissal from service for misconduct‑‑Labour Court after recording evidence reaching conclusion that the charges of theft levelled against respondent‑employees could not be proved set aside dismissal order and ordered their re‑instatement in service‑‑Order of Labour Court upheld by Labour Appellate Tribunal‑‑ No misreading of evidence as alleged by petitioner's counsel discovered‑‑ Question raised, being primarily a question of appreciation of evidence, was not open to be gone into in writ jurisdiction‑‑Nether any misreading of evidence nor perverse appreciation of evidence by Tribunals below found‑‑No case for interference, held, was made out.
Talmiz Burney for Petitioner.
Makhdoom Ali Khan for Respondents.
ORDER
SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑This order will govern the disposal of two Constitutional Petitions Nos. 1400/87 and 1405/87. In both these petitions the respondents who were employees of the petitioner were accused of theft of petrol and were proceeded against in a domestic enquiry and were finally dismissed from service. Both the respondents in the above petitions filed grievance petition under section 25‑A of the IRO before the Labour Court. The learned Labour Court after hearing the parties and recording evidence reached the conclusion that the charges of theft levelled against the Respondent No. 1 in the above petitions could not be proved and accordingly the dismissal order of the respondents was set aside and they were ordered to be re‑instated in service with full back benefits. The order passed by the Labour Court has been upheld by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. In these petitions the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court and upheld by the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal are based on misreading of evidence. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioners we have gone through the evidence and are unable to discover any misreading of evidence as alleged by the learned counsel. The question raised in both these petitions is primarily a question of appreciation of evidence which is not open to be gone into m the writ jurisdiction. There is neither any misreading nor perverse appreciation of the evidence by the Tribunals below. No case for interference is made out The petitions are accordingly dismissed summarily. S.Q./P‑63/K. Petitions dismissed.