Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑28 of 1983, heard on 21st January, 1985.

‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3) ‑ Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct=Examination of Enquiry Officer in Labour Court ‑Bank cashier charged for fraud‑_ Enquiry conducted fairly and impartially‑Enquiry proceedings" indicating that accused ‑treated liberally by Enquiry Officer and charge established on record Plea that Enquiry Officer being an officer of Bank was an interested person‑Merely because Enquiry Officer was associated with the Bank, held, does not make him an interested person‑Non‑produc tion or non‑examination of Enquiry Officer before Labour Court, in circumstances, held, not a serious drawback to vitiate proceed ings‑Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition maintain ed by Appellate Tribunal.

Wasiullah Qureshi for Appellant.

Mahmood A. Ghani for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 21st January, 1985.

The instant appeal is directed against the order of the Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, who on 30th December, 1982 dis missed the grievance petition filed by the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.

2. The appellant, Inamul Haq was a cashier in the respondent‑bank. He was charge‑sheeted for fraud in collaboration with one Muhammad Umer and was dismissed from service, on 14th February, 1981. The fact which pertained to the act of fraud are that on 24th May; 1980, the appellant worked as a cashier in the said bank as its Branch Office situated on Station Road, Hyderabad. One Muhammad Umer came to him and wished to deposit Rs. 50,000 in his Account No. 2636. The cashier filed in the pay‑in‑slip but did not receive money. The pay‑in slip was sent to the Accountant and the payment of s. 50,000 was duly registered. 1n the same breath the said Muhammad Umer issued two cheques, one for Rs. 40.000 and another for Rs. 10,000 and encashed the said amount. The cashier also paid Rs. 2,000 cash from the bank without getting any further cheque. The charge‑sheet recites that the appellant willfully collaborated with Muhammad Umer for defrauding the bank for Rs. 52,000. The domestic enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer, Muhammad Farooq, and after recording evidence he recommended dismissal of the appellant. The appellant was accordingly dismissed. However, the appellant preferred departmental appeal which was not accepted and accordingly he gave a grievance notice dated 24th October, 1981. He had also given a grievance notice on 26th June, 1981 but the second grievance notice was given when his departmental appeal was rejected. The grievance petition was filed on 28th November, 1981.

3. In the reply statement of the respondent‑bank it is stated that the grievance petition was time‑barred. It was reiterated that the cashier, the appellant, had defrauded the bank in collaboration with Muhammad Umer to the tune of Rs. 52.000 and it was further stated that the enquiry officer was not biased and the enquiry was fair and impartial.

4. The appeal was argued by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi for the appellant and Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani for the respondent‑bank.

5. Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani led emphasis that the grievance petition was time‑barred. He has tried to show that the decision of departmental appeal was communicated not on 8th August, 1981, but on 9th June, 1981. The copy 'A/3' of the Lower Court record shows that communication in respect of departmental appeal was made on 8th August, 1981 and not earlier on 9th June, 1981. This point was scrutinized by the Labour Court and he came to the conclusion that the copy R/24' containing the communication of departmental appeal on 9th June, 1981 was not correct and it was held that for the first time the communication was made according to A/2' on 8th August, 1981. The appellant in his evidence has denied the receipt of the reply as 'R/24'. The learned Labour Court correctly decided that 'A/3' was issued for the first time regarding the dis missal of appeal. In the circumstances the grievance notice, dated 24th October, 1981 was not time‑barred. I also subscribe to the findings of the Labour Court in this respect.

6. As regards the arguments of Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi for the appel lant, they are briefly that the enquiry officer was a witness, therefore, could not be an enquiry officer. The Zonal Chief was also a witness and he was not examined. Some of the questions were not allowed by the enquiry Officer. The enquiry was conducted by Muhammad Farooq whose appointment was ordered by the Assistant Vice‑President. Hyderabad Division, Project Zone. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi argued that the Zonal Chief was himself a witness against the appellant hence he was not competent to appoint the enquiry officer. This piece of arguments was rejected by the Labour Court. The Zonal Chief was not a witness actually against the appellant and he did not see or signed any document with regard to the encashment of Rs. 50,000 or their deposit fraudulently in collaboration with Muhammad Umer. This argument has no force. Similarly Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi contended that the enquiry officer. Muhammad Farooq, was a witness which is not a fact. Mr. Muhammad Farooq, was not assisted with the proceedings against the appellant as a witness and he has no personal knowledge of the facts. His contentions are besides the point. Several authorities were cited by the learned counsel, Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi namely, 1982 P L C 925 and 1967 P L C 456, which are not applicable. Mr. Muhammad Farooq was not an interested person. Merely because he was associated with the bank, does not make him an interested person or an interested witness. In the Labour Court the Enquiry Officer was not produced or examined as a witness which is not a serious drawback to vitiate the proceedings. On perusal of the enquiry proceedings "R/4" it shows that the Enquiry Officer was very liberal with the appellant. He accepted the adjournment applications. He allowed the appellant to nominate one Sagheeruddin as representative in the proceedings. On 4th June, 1980, the enquiry officer could have proceeded against the appellant when the later walked out but he did not do so and adjourned the matter. On 9th June, 1981, the enquiry officer recorded the proceedings in Urdu at appellant's request and then after recording statement of the complainant adjourned the proceedings on application of the appellant, In fact the enquiry officer held sittings on various dates to accommodate the appellant. These all contentions of Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi the learned counsel for the appel lant, were repelled by the Labour Court and he did so rightly.

7. The facts of fraud are clear. The appellant did not receive the cash and hence he filled in pay‑in‑slip and passed on to the Accountant and not only he paid Rs. 2,000 without cheque to the account holder, Muhammad Umer, but simultaneously he encashed the cheque issued by Muhammad Umer, namely, for Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 10,000, respectively. This conduct clearly shows that the encashment and deposit was dishonestly processed, and the enquiry officer has correctly held him guilty for mis conduct and dismissed him.

Considering all these facts I also dismiss the appeal.

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.