' This judgment shall dispose of L.A. Nos. 69 of 2004, 355/2004, 356/2003 and 357/2003 as all these appeals arise out of the same judgment.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of these appeals are that appellants were serving with the respondent-Bank as permanent workmen. The appellants filed grievance petitions against the respondent-Bank and stated that they were suspended on 21-6-1997 but later on charge-sheet was issued on 14-7-1997 and certain false and bogus, allegations were levelled against them. They submitted reply to the charge-sheets and stated that actually Manager lchhra Branch (Sikandar Mehmood) had been defrauding the bank, which was admitted by him before higher officials. The appellants further stated that Sikandar Mehmood had deposited some amount embezzled by him but full amount" was not repaid and that Sikandar Mehmood and other higher officials of the bank were involved in fraud. The appellants averred that charge-sheet was time-barred and that proper inquiry was not conducted before, their dismissal. Also that criminal case was registered against them but during investigation they were found to be innocent and that actual culprits were Sikandar Mehmood (Manager) and Fakhar Hussain Mirza (Zonal Chief). They prayed for setting aside their dismissal orders dated 3-8-1998 and prayed for reinstatement in service with back- benefits. The respondent-Bank mentioned in reply that on 14-7-1997 charge-sheet was issued and that through letter dated 10-6-1997 Wapda authorities repoited with-holding of Wapda funds with mala fide intention and Audit was ordered to look into the matter relating to Ichhra Branch of the respondent-Bank and Audit Team submitted its final report on 7-10-1997 and second report was submitted on 13-11-1997. The respondent also stated that total loss was in Millions of Rupees and that appellants were fully involved infraud.Learned trial Court recorded evidence and dismissed the grievance petitions brought by appellant vide order dated 10-4-2002. Hence these appeals.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. As mentioned above appellants were serving with therespondent-bank and they were posted at Ichhra Branch, charge-sheets were issued against them and after regular inquiry, they were dismissed from service vide orders dated 3-8-1998. The case of respondent-Bank is that appellants were involved in fraud and they along with Branch Manager, Sikandar Mehmood had embezzled the amount available in the account of Wapda and others. The respondent-Bank dismissed them from service after regular inquiry. The case of appellant is that charge-sheet was time-barred, as bank came to know about their misconduct on 9-6-1997 but charge-sheet was issued on 14-7-1997. The. Case of respondent-Bank is that after receipt of letter by Wapda about the embezzlement bank ordered for audit and then issued charge-sheet and that there was serious allegation of embezzlement and fraud against appellants, therefore, in the circumstances of the case minor delay, if any, is immaterial and appellants could not be absolved merely on this technicality. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the case of Muhammad Yousaf Khan v. Habib Bank Limited through President and others (2004 SCM R 149). Learned trial Court observed that if few days for transaction (the day of dispatch and receipt) are excluded the appellants were rightly charge-sheeted within statutory period on 14-7-1997 and charge-sheet was in time. It is clear from the material available on record that there were serious allegations of fraud and misconduct against the appellants, therefore, this objection is devoid of force.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that inquiry was defective. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has argued that learned trial Court and even this Court is empowered to look into the record the proceedings to see the grounds of dismissal. I have gone through the inquiry proceedings. It is clear from the inquiry proceedings that no prejudice was caused to the appellants during inquiry. Even otherwise Labour Court has the jurisdiction to go behind a dismissal order and to see whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case it was justified or not both merits as well as law. Reliancecan be placed on the case of Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. Through General Attorney and another v. Amir Hussain and another (1996 SCM R 464). As stated above, appellants were involved in embezzlement of huge amount, therefore, order of dismissal was proper. The inquiry was not defective and there was as no justification to set aside the same.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has raised objection that appellants Muhammad Akram Saleem and Raza Ali Jafri were not the workers, therefore, they could not file grievance petition before trial Court. However the evidence produced by the parties, shows that the said appellants were workers. So learned trial Court had rightly observed that appellants were'workers. It is well-settled that to determine whether a person is worker or not what is to be seen is the nature of duty of the worker. It is in evidence that aforesaid appellants were doing clerical job and that they were not doing supervisory or managerial duties, therefore, learned trial Court had jurisdiction to hear the case.
7. The most important aspect of the case is that Mukhtar Ahmad, appellant made confessional statement during inquiry. His statement reads as under:-- "1. I admit that I had committed the above charges detailed in charge-sheet and had been doing the following works during my stay in Ichhra Branch as assistant. I have been doing bogus balancing of ledger No,CD-I on different dates as given in the charge-sheet with the knowledge that wrong/bogus balance wise appearing in the red.
2. I had been frequently altering the balance appearing in ledger through cuttings alteration over writing and applying rectifying fluid.
3. Whenever the advices were prepared for the transfer of funds of M/s. Shabbir Tiles Mr. Sikandar used to verbally ask Mr. Raza Ali Jaffari, Accountant of the branch for the preparation I advice for a specific amount of Mr. Raza use to prepare the advice for same amount but I was instructed by Mr. Raza Ali Jaffari not to post the advice in the ledger account of M/s. Shabbir Tiles.
' He further stated that he-had been doing all the above acts on the instructions of Mr. Raza Ali Jaffari, Accountant to whom Sikandar used to give verbal instructions in our presence. The alteration/cuttings overwriting in the Wapda ledgers were also done on the instructions of Mr. Sikandar Mahmood Manager conveyed to him through Mr. Raza Ali Jaffari. He further stated, that when he used balance the ledger No,1 Mr. Jaffari used to tell him the balance of both documents M/s. Shabbir Tiles and Wapda to be altered according to their requirements. He stated that he was in knowledge that he was doing some thing wrong and not permitted in the banking procedure being an employee of the bank having more than 20 years in service but he had been doing it under the instructions of Accountant Mr. Raza Ali Jaffari and Mr. Sikandar Mahmood, Manager. He stated that he had been doing so without any monetary benefit and without any consideration, just considering it as an order of the Seniors."
' So his appeal is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
8. According to learned counsel for the respondent-Bank due tomisconduct of appellants, bank suffered loss of Rs,1,90,00,000 in the account of Wapda and Rs,3,91,17,000 in the accounts of other people. However learned counsel for the appellants submits that bank suffered loss of Rs,1,90,00,000 only and out of this amount Sikandar Mehmood (Manager) had paid Rs,90,00.000. So it is clear that bank had suffered heavy loss.
9. Admittedly due to this incident/fraud a very good account holder (Wapda) was constrained to close its account. It was irreparable loss for the respondent-Bank because business of bank depends upon its good will/reputation. It is well-settled that on the basis of sheer technicalities appellants cannot be exonerated from serious charges of misappropriation and fraud. It makes them disentitled to remain in service of bank. It is clear from the material available on record that appellants and Sikandar Mehmood, Manager finis-appropriated huge amount. The charges levelled against the appellants have been proved. So in the circumstances of the case I find that learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the grievance petitions brought by appellants. The impugned judgment is just and proper, therefore, there is no justification to set aside the same.
10. For what has been discussed above I am of the considered opinion that these appeals have no force and the same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.