Find a Lawyer

Appeal No.Rt-715 of 1980/Pb., decided on 30th July, 1982.

---S.25-A--Work man--Dismissal Allegation of misappropriation against employee Fact admitted that Amount in question when drawn alleged recipient was out of Pakistan--Thumb-impression affixed on payment found fictitious and person receiving not examined either in enquiry or before lower Court Mis-appropriation of amount by workman proved- Dismissal from service of such workman, held, rightly ordered.

Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Appellant.

Mirza Anwar Baig for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 20^th June, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 1-9-1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The appellant was charge-sheeted on 12-6-1979. The charge-sheet is EXh. R.1. The allegation against him was that he had drawn Rs.1,000 payable to an employee of the respondent, namely, Mohammad Aslam son of Mumtaz. He is alleged to have drawn Rs.125 as interest payable to the above-mentioned Mohammad Aslam, the amount totalling Rs.1,125, but did not pay the amount to the said employee. The fraud was discovered when ex-employee Mohammad Aslam who was entitled to the said amount made a complaint Exh. P.5 to the respondent. Exh. R.2 is the reply to the charge-sheet. The appellant produced statement in writing Exh.R.4 during the enquiry. Later on an application Exh.P.8 purported to have been written by the ex-employee Mohammad Aslam was received by the management to the effect that one Mian Khan who had been authorised by him had received the amount from the respondent and that since he did not know this fact, therefore, he had made the complaint Exh.P.5. He reported in the application that he had received the amount and that nothing was due to him from the respondent. The said Mohammad Aslam, ex-employee, was not examined by the appellant either in the enquiry or before the lower Court. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the signatures on Exh. P.8 do not tally with the signatures appearing on complaint Exh.P.5 and other documents but since no comparison was got made from any expert, no definite opinion can be formed in respect of the similarity, or otherwise of the disputed signatures appearing on Exh.P.8 with the admitted signatures. But the signatures of Mohammad Aslam were forged on the record at the time of receiving the amount of Rs.1,000 Exh.P.6 and Rs.125 Exh. P.7 and those signatures were attested and the man identified by the appellant. Admittedly at the relevant time when the amounts were drawn, Mohammad Aslam, ex-employee was out of Pakistan, therefore, no question of his signing the payment of the above-mentioned amounts arises. The contention made in application Exh. P.8 that Mian Khan had received the amount stands controverted by the fact that the payments were received by Mohammad Aslam and not by Mian Khan. On the payment of Rs.1,000 a thumb-impression appears but the name of the person who had affixed the thumb-impression is not given, therefore, it cannot be said whether Mian Khan thumb-marked the receipt of B payment or the thumb-impression is ficticious. Mian Khan was also not examined by the appellant either in the enquiry or before the lower Court. Since the case of the respondent was that the appellant had drawn the amounts, therefore, it was not their duty to either examine Mian Khan or the complainant. Since it was the case of the appellant that Mian Khan had received the amounts, therefore, he should have examined that person. Since the payments were received not by Mian Khan but is shown to have been received by Mohammad Aslam, who at that time was out of Pakistan, it is apparent that whatever is written in application Exh.P.8 is incorrect and either this application was not given by the ex-employee Mohammad Aslam or if he was the person who sent this application, then whatever written in it being false is not helpful to the appellant. It appears that the appellant had drawn the amounts and since it was not paid to ex-employee Mohammad Aslam, therefore, the latter made complaint Exh.P.5 and, thereafter, the appellant paid him the misappropriated amount and requested not to pursue the matter and thus either got sent application Exh.P.8 by that Mohammad Aslam, or he himself sent that application purported to have been signed by ex-employee Mohammad Aslam. The misappropriation, therefore, was duly proved and the appellant was rightly dismissed. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.

M. Y. M.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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