' HAFIZ ABDUR REHMAN ANSARI (CHAIRMAN).--- The Postal Department has filed the instant appeal against the judgment dated 21-12-2011 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No 8, Bahawalpur.
2. The brief facts of the instant case are that respondent Muhammad Rafiq filed grievance petition under section 33 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 before the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur contending that his service in the appellant-department was more than 29 years and his whole service record is unblemished. During the performance of his duty as Postmaster at Minchanabad Post Office, Bahawalnagar, a charge has been levelled against the respondent regarding alleged misappropriation of Rs,60000 along with one Muhammad Naeem Akram for bogus disbursement to the beneficiaries of Benazir Income Support Program. As a result of preliminary enquiry, the respondent was compulsory retired from service vide order dated 31-12-2010, against which the respondent preferred departmental appeal, which was rejected on 26-2-2011:After serving the grievance notice upon the appellant, the respondent filed grievance petition before learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur. The appellant-department contested the same and filed written statement. Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur while setting aside the order of compulsory retirement as well as that of rejection of department appeal by the authority, accepted .The grievance petition of Muhammad Rafique vide order dated 21-12-2011 by which he was reinstated with all back-benefits.
3. Learned counsel for appellant-department submitted that respondent misappropriated an amount of Rs,60000 of BISP Money. The beneficiaries of the program moved applications, upon which, show-cause notice was issued to the respondent and enquiry has been held. As a result thereof, the respondent has been retired compulsorily vide order, dated 31-12-2010. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment dated 21-12-2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,8, and Bahawalpur is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law as the Learned Trial Court did not properly discuss the evidence of the parties.
Neither the learned Lower Court has examined the facts of the case nor observed the legal description. The learned counsel further contended that the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur without applying judicious mind and without going through the facts of the case, wrongly allowed the grievance petition filed by respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent-employee forcefully supported the impugned judgment dated 21-12-2011. He submitted that the postal department failed to produce any beneficiary of BISP who had lodged the complaint against the respondent as alleged by the department. He further submitted that the postal departmental also failed to prove any misappropriation of money of BISP by the respondent. He submitted that on the basis of frivolous and baseless charges, the respondent cannot be deprived from his employment. The learned counsel further argued that the respondent is discriminated as another employee of the same department, Shahid Iqbal Salimi in fact against whom charges were levelled and enquiry was held who was found guilty. On the order of the learned Presiding Officer, he is reinstated into service. The grievance petition filed by the respondent-employee 'is being treated differently by the department. The learned counsel further submitted that the department's own witness favoured the respondent-employee and his statement exonerated the petitioner/respondentemployee from the charges. The learned counsel next submitted that the respondent-employee has no other source of income and facing financial hardships to bring up his children.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the file of this Tribunal as well as that of Lower Court.
6. The learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur after thorough appraisal of the evidence on record allowed the grievance petition filed by the respondent. Firstly, there is no written complaint against the respondent set out by the aggrieved beneficiaries of Benazir Income Support Program. Further affidavits Exh.P.2 to Exh.P.18 sworn in favour of the respondent exonerating him from the charges levelled against him. The witness of the appellant-department RW.1 favoured the respondent in his statement. He stated that enquiry was initiated against one Shahid Iqbal Salimi. In that enquiry, some complaints were revealed against the respondent. The appellant- department's own witness RW-1, Muhammad Ismail stated in cross-examination:___ {{ URDU TEXT }} ' In fact, enquiry was being held against Shahid Iqbal Saleemi, Postman, who was found guilty and subsequently, he was reinstated, but on the similar charges, the respondent in appeal in hand is penalized with major penalty and is compulsory retired. RW-1 in cross-examination admitted that:- -- {{ URDU TEXT }}
7. " Further, Shahid Iqbal Salimi was reinstated by the department against whom similar allegations were levelled. Law does not permit discrimination. The respondent is entitled for the same relief. The major penalty of compulsory retirement is harsh one. Shahid Iqbal Salimi who was also terminated from service on the same allegation has been reinstated into service by the Labour Court and was reinstated by the Department. The beneficiaries swore affidavits that they have received the amount of money orders. On the record, there is ample evidence exonerating the respondent from charges. The learned Presiding Officer rightly allowed the grievance petition and ordered the department to reinstate the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant badly failed to point out any misreading or non-reading or any piece of evidence which favours the department for accepting the appeal and setting-aside the impugned judgment passed in favour of the respondent. The enquiry officer who conducted enquiry against Shahid Iqbal Saleemi, Postman, Minchanabad did not appear in witness box and failed to endorse Exh.P.1 which is wrongly exhibited. Further, this enquiry report is with regard to the complaint against Shahid Iqbal Saleemi, Postman, Minchanabad and not against the present respondent in the appeal.
8. In the light of above discussion, the appeal has no legal force and is dismissed. The judgment of the Labour Court is upheld which will be implemented in letter and spirit.