Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ARSHAD VS Respondent: THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR
1988 P L C 113
1988 P L C 113
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind]
Present: Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and 3 others
versus
THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR and others
Appeal No‑SUK‑261 of 1986, decided on 25th March, 1987.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Misconduct‑‑Appellants, Railways employees, charged for theft of one drum of HSD oil and having been found guilty in domestic enquiry directed to make good the loss and also awarded punishment of two steps reduction in their pay for two years‑‑Charge of theft established in proper, lawful and reasonable domestic enquiry in which appellants had fully participated‑‑Respondent‑Railways, held, had rightly taken disciplinary action against appellants which needed no interference‑‑Appeal dismissed and impugned order of Labour Court maintained.
Manzar Alam for Appellants.
Shabbir Ahmad Awan for Respondents.
Date of hearing; 25th March, 1987.
DECISION
This is an appeal jointly filed by the appellants against an impugned order, dated 15‑5‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellants under Section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellants were employed in the respondent Railways in various capacities and according to them, as the Assistant Chairman, Pakistan Railways, Padidan, was involved in malpractice and misuse of railway material etc, they had made a joint representation to the higher authorities complaining against him. In stead of any action against the said Assistant Engineer, the respondent Railways very falsely got involved the appellants in case of alleged theft of one drum of Hsd oil from the stores department and thereafter all of them were placed under suspension and were issued charge‑sheets. As their replies to the charge‑sheets were not found satisfactory, therefore, a domestic enquiry was conducted against them which was not proper and fair accordingly to them. The result of the enquiry was that the appellants were directed to debit the cost of one Drum of Hsd oil and punishment of two steps reduction in their pay for two years was also awarded. Therefore the appellants submitted their grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.
3. The respondent Railways resisted the petition and had denied the allegation of malpractice or any misuse of railway materials. They further denied if they had received any representation from the appellants. On merits, it was claimed by the respondent Railways that action against the appellants had been correctly and lawfully taken as a consequence the result of a proper and reasonable domestic enquiry. It was also the case of the respondent Railways that the grievance petition of the appellants was time‑barred, hence liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were cross‑examined. Thereafter the learned Labour Court dismissed the petition, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Manzar Alam, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent Railways, and have carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It was contended by Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan, the learned Advocate for the respondent Railways that the appellants were charge‑sheeted on the allegation of committing theft of one drum of Hsd oil and the Chowkidar had reported the matter to the Charge man which was established by a shortage shown in the Balance Sheet prepared for the goods kept in the yard of the respondent Railways. In this behalf a proper, lawful and reasonable domestic enquiry was held against the appellants in which they had fully participated. On the basis the enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer had found the appellants guilty of the theft and so the respondent Railways had rightly taken disciplinary action against the appellants which need no interference. I would hold that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order, which has been rightly passed by the learned Labour Court.
6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.
S.Q./1035/Lb.S
Appeal dismissed.