Find a Lawyer

Application No. 39 of 1966. decided on 27th April 1967.

----S. 7(2) (c)‑Deduction‑ Shortage in store‑Employee not entrusted with articles formally ---No list of articles prepared or signed at time of taking ever Employee, in circumstances, held, not responsible for any lots‑ Employer, not authorised to make deduction from wages of SUM employee on account of alleged loss.

This is an application from Towakal Hussain son of Nowazish Ali Running Room Cook, Loco Shed P. W. R., Lahore against the Divisional Superintendent, P. W. R., Lahore, under the Payment of Wages Act, for the payment of his deducted wages amounting to Rs. 100 for the months of October, November, December and January. He has also prayed for compensation for the deducted wages, at 10 times of the actual amount.

The following two issues were framed:‑

(1) Whether deductions from the wages of the petitioner made by the respondent are lawful and the respondent is entitled to do so

(2) If the deductions are not lawful, to what relief the applicant is entitled

.

The petitioner closed his case after his statement. In his statement before the Court he has stated that on 1‑5‑61 he was appointed as Running Room Cook and was transferred from Lyallpur. At that time Abdul Rashid was Running Room bearer. On 10‑5‑61 Abdul Rashid died and the charge of the Running Room was not handed over to him by any person. He has further stated that he was transferred to Running Room as an additional hand and Abdul Rashid tool and plant clerk was incharge of the articles in the Running Room. He has further stated that the P. W. R. Authorities issued an order that Rs. 374.90 be deducted from his monthly wages at the rate of Rs. 25 p.m. and the first instalment was deducted from his monthly wages of September paid in October. In his cross examination he has stated that he did not take any article in his charge and before the Enquiry Officer also he requested for the supply of the list of articles handed over to him, but it was not done. In his defence the respondent has produced 5 witnesses. D. W. 1 Mr. A. G. Quershi Foreman, P. W. R. has stated that under the orders of A. M. E. I. he conducted inquiry against the petitioner and he held, him responsible for the loss of Running Room articles. In his cross‑examination this witness has admitted that the list of articles was not signed by the applicant which were given in his charge. He has also admitted that in reply to the charge‑sheet the shortage was not admitted by the applicant. D. W. 2 Mr. M. A. Siddique admitted before the Court that when. he interviewed the applicant he did not admit the shortages. In cross‑examination he has stated that the list of articles handed over to the petitioner was not shown to him. D. W. 3 Afroz Khan Junior Mechanical Engineer admitted in his cross examination that he did not receive any list of taking over charge by the applicant. He was the officer who ordered for an enquiry against him. The most important witness in the case is D. W. 4 Muhammad Ishaq Running Room Cook who made over the charge of the articles to the petitioner. In his cross‑examination he has admitted that no list of articles was prepared at the time of handing over charge to Towakal Hussain. He has also stated that when he took over from Rashiduddin, no list was prepared. He did not take any signatures from Towakal Hussain for the articles handed over to him has also admitted that no list of articles was prepared.

From the evidence produced before the Court it is clear that the petitioner did not sign any list of articles when he received the charge of the Running Room. P. W. 4 from whom the applicant‑received the charge of Running Room has admitted before the Court in cross‑examination that no list was prepared and he did not take any receipt from Towakal Hussain, It has therefore, been established that when the charge of the Running Room was made over to the petitioner the list of articles was not prepared and respondent has not filed any list on which the applicant might have signed in token of the receipt of the articles. In reply to the charge‑sheet also the petitioner has denied the charge and has stated that he was not responsible for the loss of the articles. I view of this position I hold that the petitioner is not responsible for the shortages as respondent has failed to produce the list of articles received by him at the time of his taking over the charge of the running room. I therefore, order that the sum of Rs. 374.90 should not be deducted from the wages of Towakal Hussain petitioner and if any amount has been deducted from his wages on account of this shortage that should be immediately paid to the said petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for compensation at 10 times of the deduction but I do not accede to his request for compensation. The respondent should however pay him a sum of Rs. 2.50 as cost.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.