Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. JG‑146 of 1982, decided on 20th March, 1982.

‑‑‑ Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Bank employee‑‑Alleged to have intentionally failed to deduct Zakat amounting to Rs. 145 from two accounts‑ Explanation that omission was due to inadvertence and miscalculations and abnormal rush of work‑‑No material to prove intentional omission‑ Appeal against order of Labour Court awarding re‑instatement without back benefits, in circumstances, dismissed by Appellate Tribunal‑ Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).

Sardar All for Appellant. Date of hearing: 9th March, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 3‑2‑1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad, whereby he accepted the grievance petition of the respondent and directed his re‑instatement in service without back benefits.

2. The respondent was an Assistant and his service were terminated by the order dated 4‑10‑1981.The allegation against the respondent was that he had intentionally failed to deduct Zakat from S.B. 3334 amounting to Rs.135 and from S.B.5154 amounting to Rs.10. The respondent had admitted the omission but pleaded that it was due to rush of work and inadvertence and was not intentional. His case was that the information from the. Zonal Office was received at about 12 noon for the deduction of Zakaat and this work was to be completed upto 12.00 at night and that about 900 accounts were entrusted to him to deduct Zakaat within this short period. Obviously, no fraud was committed by the respondent, nor he in any manner misappropriated any amount. Out of 900 accounts he failed t) deduct Zakaat from two numbers only which clearly showed that it was due to inadvertence and miscalculation. The amount not deducted from the two accounts comes to Rs.145 only. Learned counsel for the appellant has said that the employees of the appellant Branch had conspired together to miss to deduct Zakaat from the accounts entrusted to them in lieu of omission to deduct Zakaat in other account numbers, in which he was entrusted. He says that the respondent may have intentionally missed to deduct Zakaat from Accounts Nos.3334 and 5154 in lieu of the same omissions made by some other employees in other account numbers in which the respondent was entrusted. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any material on the record in support of his this contention. The learned lower Court in these circumstances has rightly come to the conclusion that the omission was not intentional or mala fide and was only the result of miscalculation and inadvertence. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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