' This judgment shall decide F.A.Os. Nos.67 and 68 of 2004 as both proceed against a common judgment dated 3-10-2001 passed by learned Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan.
2. On 26-10-2000 the respondent-Muhammad Arif filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 against the appellant. According to this petition he was working as an Accounts Assistant and is a workman under I.R.O., 1969 as well as West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The appellant proceeded to dismiss him from service vide order dated 6-12-1999. According to him, said dismissal order is void inasmuch as the charge-sheet served on 5-11-1996 in relation to a misconduct occurring on 20-7-1996 and 22-7- 1996 was barred by time. The inquiry was not conducted properly. The inquiry officer was biased and the dismissal has in fact been ordered because of the trade union activities of the respondent.
3. On merits it was stated that he is not at all involved in the alleged embezzlement and those who were involved, depositedthe amount and were exonerated. It was then stated as follows:-- "Moreover, all the transactions for which the petitioner has been accused and given extreme penalty of dismissal from service was made with the mutual understanding of the Regional Incharge and Warehouse Incharge, which was not called for and consistent."
' He accordingly sought reinstatement in service. In their written reply the appellants objected that respondent was not a worker. There was a reference that the respondent in the first instance approached N.I.R.0 and having failed there filed the petition. It was denied that the dismissal was mala fide, according to them, the proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and it was proved that he is involved in misappropriation of employers' money. Regarding the matter of limitation qua charge-sheet, it was stated that a report was received in the head office on 22-7- 1996 whereupon a preliminary inquiry was held and a detailed report was received on 19-10-1996 and, as such, the charge-sheet is well within time. It was further stated that out of the other accused persons, the Regional Sales Manager was dismissed from service while the other Junior Manager Logistics has resigned. The learned Labour Court recorded evidence of the parties and vide judgment dated 3-10-2000 the grievance petition was allowed and the respondent was reinstated in service with 25% back-benefits as he was found partly responsible for delay in decision of the case. Against this judgment the appellant has filed F.A.O. No,67 of 2004 claiming the dismissal of the grievance petition while the respondent Muhammad Arif has filed F.A.O. No,68 of 2004 claiming full back-benefits.
4. Mian Muhammad Saleem, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Labour Court has wrongly found the charge-sheet to be barred by time and accordingly recorded a slipshod judgment on merits of the case. According to the learned counsel this was a case of embezzlement and the law also, calls upon the employer, to make preliminary Inquiry and, as such, the charge-sheet served after the preliminary investigation is well within time. He vehemently urges that the guilt was admitted by the respondent and keeping in view the nature of his duties and that fact that he was the custodian of the financial records, it cannot at all be said that his dismissal from service is illegal and harsh.
5. Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Goreja, Advocate, on the other hand, contends that the charge-sheet was barred by time. According to the learned counsel since the employer had come to know the misconduct, the limitation period, started running and the chargesheet as such was barred by time. Apart from several judgments recorded by the learned Appellate Labour Tribunal, he relies on a judgment of a Division Bench of the learned Peshawar High Court in case of "Abdul Rashid v.
Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 2 others" (1997 PLC 34). On merits he contends that the inquiry was sham proceeding. His client was seriously prejudiced as he was tried along with other officers of the company, who were not workmen or workers. According to the learned counsel, the other persons involved were let off lightly whereas a harsh penalty was imposed upon the respondent because of his union activities. The learned counsel urges that what is being termed as an admission has to be read as a whole and not piecemeal. According to him, his client was coerced into doing the misdeed by higher officers. He also points out that the inquiry officer was not produced and the reason was not sufficient. He also claims that since his client has remained unemployed and since his dismissal has been held to be void, he is entitled to the full back-benefits.
6. I have gone through the trial Court records with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The reliance has been placed by the respondent as also by the learned Labour Court on the following Standing Order 15(4):-- "No order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct within one month of the date of such misconduct or of the date on which the alleged misconduct comes to the notice of the employer and is given an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged . Against him. The approval of the employer shall be required in every case of dismissal and, the employer shall institute independent inquiries before dealing with charges against a workman."
7. Now upon a plain reading said provisions of law state inmandatory terms that the workman is to be informed within one month from the date of such misconduct or of the date on which the alleged misconduct comes to the notice of the employer.
8. Now there is no denial that the employer company is headquartered at Karachi. The case of the Company as contained in written-statement and then in the statement of Mushir Ahmad JaffariRW I is that report dated 20-7-1996 (Exh. P12) was received from Bahawalpur office at Karachi on 22-7- 199.6 wherein the embezzlements were recorded. Pursuant thereto a preliminary inquiry was ordered by the Company and a report was filed on 9-10-1996 thereafter it was decided to proceed against the accused officers including the respondent.
According to this report, the embezzlements were committed between IB 18-2-1996 to 22-5-1996.
9. Now the contention of the learned counsel for respondent is that the period of one month shall commence from 22-7-1996 as it shall be deemed that the employer had the knowledge of misconduct on the said date.
10. The charge-sheet (Exh. P1) was issued on 5-11-1996. Now what has to be seen is as to whether without reference to all other circumstances of the case it can be held that notwithstanding the fact that the evidence on the record goes to prove the guilt of a person appointed as an Accounts Assistant dealing with the finances of the employer, the said provision can be invoked to avoid penalty. To my mind the answer has to be in negative. I draw support from the following observation in the case of "Muhammad Yousaf Khan v. Habib Bank Limited and others" (2004 SCM R 149):-- "The provisions as contained in the Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 could not be interpreted in such a manner that delinquent should be scot-free after thirty days in any case as such interpretation would neither be logical nor reasonable. As mentioned hereinabove the time shall reckon from the date of knowledge and the date of detection of embezzlement and fraud. The minor delay, if any, can be ignored in view of the serious nature of the allegations. In fact the petitioner did his best to prolong and protract the disciplinary proceedings for the reasons best known to him.
There is nothing on the record to attribute any mala fide to the appellant-Company in the matter of deeming it proper to satisfy itself as to the correctness of the facts reported to the headquarters on 20-7-1996. There is also no denial that preliminary inquiry was conducted after joining the respondent. I, therefore, do hold that the charge-sheet (Exh.P1) cannot be said to be barred by time within the meaning of Standing Order 15(4).
11. Now coming to the merits of the case, the allegation against the appellant was that he along with others in connivance with the Regional Sales Manager or otherwise prepared fraudulent cash vouchers and got the same approved. He filled up/prepared blank cheques bearing advance signatures of the Zonal Field Manager and the then acting Regional Sales Manager, Bahawalpur and in violation of mandatory rules of the company and Expense Procedure the cheques were not crossed, the cheques were issued bearer and were encashed and amount misappropriated. These cheques were produced in evidence as Exh.R10 to Exh. R18.
12. Now the respondent appeared as P.W. 1 and stated in his very examination-in-chief that the cheque book was in his custody and he was also the custodian of the cash but he clarified that the payment was made after the approval of the Regional Sales Managers. Then he proceeded to state as follows:-- "The cheques, photocopies being Exh. R/10 to Exh.R/18 were prepared by me but under the direction of Regional Manager and Warehouse Incharge. It is also correct that I have got these cheques encashed from the bank but this was done forcibly by Regional Incharge, who directed me to do so. I had not made any complaint about forcible encashment, aforesaid, because 1 was not so authorized."
' Thereafter he stated as follows:-- "It is correct that the nine cheques aforesaid were sent by me to the head office after being crossed. Volunteered that it was done by me forcibly by the Regional Manager and Warehouse Incharge. The said crossed cheques are Exh.R/21 and Exh.R/21 to Exh. R/21-7.
' He also admitted his signatures on several documents. In his cross-examination he admitted that he never made any complaint to any higher officer that the Regional Incharge and Warehouse Incharge had obtained his signatures forcibly on the aforesaid documents.
13. Now what is important is that all the nine cheques (Exh.R/10 to Exh. R/18) are in favour of third parties, who were stated to be the dealers of employer-Company. These cheques have been encashed by writing the names of said persons. Now it is admitted by the respondent that he signed those cheques and get them encashed. This means he admits that he signed the names of the persons in whose favour the cheques were issued and received the money. Thereafter, he admits that he crossed the photocopy and sent the same to the headquarters, the only inference is that he attempted to represent that he had issued cross-cheques in favour of the said dealers.
14. There is no evidence on record that he was coerced into doing the said illegal rather criminal acts. On the other hand, even if he is making a true statement, he never brought it to the notice of employer-Company and went on hand in hand with the others involved. To my mind the said evidence recorded in the Court and the statement from the horses mouth himself are sufficient to sustain the dismissal order.
15. As a result of above discussion, F.A.O. No,67 of 2004 is allowed while F.A.O. No,68 of 2004 is dismissed. Consequently the grievance petition filed by Muhammad Aril is dismissed.
' The trial Court records immediately be remitted. No order as to costs.