Find a Lawyer

Appeal No, LHR‑137 of 1984, decided on 8th December, 1984.

‑‑ Dismissal for misconduct‑Bank employee‑Second show‑cause notice essential‑Supply of copy of enquiry report to accused necessary before obtaining his statement required to be placed before competent authority‑Dismissal order passed without second show- cause notice, held, rightly set aside by Labour Court‑Reinstatement being on technical ground, employee, in circumstances, not entitled to back benefits‑Wage Commission Award (First), Para. 258(5), Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).

M. S. Bokhari for Appellants.

Pervez Inayat Malik for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 1st December, 1984.

The decision dated 29th February, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer. Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been .challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The allegations against the respondent were that a parallel bank ing system had been running in the branch by one Muhammad Ashraf and the respondent was an active participant in it and that a huge amount of Rs. 5,05, 575 was received by the respondent from Muhammad Ashraf and that Rs. 520 were recovered from him at the instance of the said Muhammad Ashraf. Mr. Zulkarnain Hyder, who had made checking deposed that the amount of Rs. 84,000r. was:‑paid by the respondent to Asif Mahmood, a fictitious person. He also said that receiving cashier's book folios showed that at the end of the . day, the respondent had been signing the receiving‑cashier's book folios. He also said that the amounts received from the account‑holders were, not' accounted for in 'bank's books but fictitious credit entries were made in the accounts to satisfy the account‑holders. He has not said in whose handwriting the entries are but the respondent being the cashier had to make entries. If he did not make the entries, then he had to explain who made the entries in the books maintained by him. So, he cannot avoid the responsibility. The learned lower Court has rightly held that service of second show‑cause notice was necessary but it was not done. Sub‑para. (5) of para. 258 of 1st Wage Commission Award says that enquiry report is to be placed before the competent authority alongwith the statement of the accused. This statement is to be obtained from the employee after the delivery of the copy of the enquiry report to him because without that he does not . know what is the report and how he has been found guilty. I have discussed this point in detail in Appeal No. KI‑595/80 Punjab titled as U. B. L. v, Mirza Ghulam Asghar' decided on 30^th May, 1982 and need not repeat in detail here. Since second show‑cause notice was given, the respondent was rightly directed to be reinstated in service. Since the respondent succeeded on a technical point; he was not entitled to back benefits.

3. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the respondent is disallowed back benefits.

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.