Intizar Ali Anjum, appellant joined service as Typist in the Muslim Commercial Bank in 1972. He was charge-sheeted (Exh. D-2) containing the following allegations against him:- --- (1) You have with fraudulent intent obtained possession of our branch Saving Bank Cheque Rook bearing printed serial No. 514001 to 514010.
(2) You have opened a fictitious account in Messrs National Bank of Pakistan, Krishan Nagar, Lahore in the name of Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad.
(4) You have already encashed a sum of Rs.10,000 by way of depositing with the said bank a cheque bearing printed No. 514001 and also tried to encash it a similar manner a cheque for Rs.40,500 bearing printed, se fal No. 514008.
(4) You have entered the s lid Cheque Book (series i. e. No. 514001 to 514010 in the ledger folio of Saving Bank Account No. 2716 in order to defraud the Bank as already mentioned in para. (3) above.
(5) That on the night of 11th July, 1978 when you were detained for questioning by our Executive Officer you went into the bathroom ostensibly to relieve yourself and escaped from the branch premises by breaking open the bathroom ventilator and that after your escape you have not report( d for duty on 12-7-1978 and 13-7-1978 (both days inclusive)."
His explanation was found unsatisfactory and an enquiry was instituted against him in which he was found guilty. After final show--cause notice he was dismissed from service vide order dated 22-4-1979. After serving grievance notice he filed a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore. He himself appeared as his own witness while the management produced Moneem Khan as D.`V.
1. The Labour Court vide impugned decision dated 27-1-198Q dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.
2. I have heard at length the counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material available on the record.
3. One Bashir Ahmad Qamer had a Saving Bank Account in Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., Lahore Cantt. Branch, Lahore. It was a non---chequed account i. e. That no amount from this account was to be withdrawn by a cheque. However necessary endorsement in this behalf was no' carried over in the ledger of 1978. In June, 1978 cheque No. 414001 for an amount of Rs. 10,0030 was received from the National Bank of Pakistan of Krishan Nagar Branch, Lahore drawn from the account of said Bashir Ahmad Qamer. This cheque was duly encashed and the amount of Rs. 10,000 was remitted to the National Bank of Pakistan, Krishan Naga; Branch. In July, 1978 another cheque bearing No. 414008 was received in the respondent Bank for the withdrawal of amount of Rs. 40,500 from the same account of Bashir Ahmad Qamer. This time the Manager of the Banfi had a suspicion about the genuineness of the cheque. He found that Bashir Ahmad Qamer was a relative of a previous Bank Manager of the same Bank. He contacted him on the telephone and came to know that Bashir Ahmad Qamer bad not issued any cheque and that it was non-chequed account, He immediately reported the matter to the higher authority. Sardax Mujibullah, an Executive Officer of the Bank made preliminary enquiry. He visited the National Bank of Pakistan, Krishan Nagar Branch, Lahore and found that fictitious account was opened in the name of Mushtaq Ahmad, in May, 1978 and that the first cheque of Rs. 10,000 was deposited in the said account and that amount had already been withdrawn. He brought an official of the Krishan Nagar Branch to the Muslim Commercial Bank, Lahore Cantonment Branch and that official identified that the present appellant Intizar Ali Anjum, was the person who had opened the account of Mushtaq Ahmad, in Krishan Nagar Branch of the National Bank of Pakistan. Sardar Mujibullah also made enquiry against the appellant and while he was inquiring from the appellant he took leave to go to the bathroom to case himself. It. Is alleged that the appellant escaped through the vintilator of the bathroom and ran away. Thereafter he also did not attend his duty for few days. Regarding the second cheque for " Rs. 40,500 it was returned to the Krishan Nagar Branch of the National Bank of Pakistan. Thereafter a letter purporting to have been written by Mushtaq Ahmad, requesting that the said cheque should be, sent again to the Muslim Commercial Bank Lahore Cantt. Branch for 0encashment was received. It is alleged that this letter was also written by the appellant. A sample of writing was prepared and the original letter as well as the sample of writing was sent to the Handwriting Expert, whose opinion was that both these documents were written by the same person. Similarly signatures of Bashir Ahmad Qamer on cheque No. 514001 dated 7-6-1973 for Rs.
10,000 were compared with the specimen admitted signature of Bashir Ahmad Qamer on the account form dated 14-5-1976. In the opinion of the Hand--writing Expert the signatures on the said cheque were not written by Bashir Ahmad Qamer.
4. It is vehemently contended by Mr. Naeem Sultan Butt, learned counsel for the appellant Bank that the enquiry report in this case is perverse, based upon hearsay evidence. I find no force in this contention. Prosecution produced Meer Asghar Alt Naqvi (P.W. 1) who produced hand--writing expert report (Exh. D) (Mr. Zaka A. Malik) and a photostat copy of the letter received b5. The ' Chief, Gulberg Area Office, Shadman Colony, Lahore, Muhammad Aslam, the introduced of Saving Bank Account to whom he proposed as Mushtaq Ahmad and opened Saving Bank Account with the National Bank of Pakistan, Krishan Nagar Branch. The rest of the two were the staff members of the National Bank of Pakistan who identified him. This document is Exh. P-III. This witness has further deposed that at the time of identification parade he was himself present in the Branch, when the appellant was identified by the person. The witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence. Mr. Mujibullah Sardar, the second witness produced by the prosecution, has endorsed the statement of Meer Asghar Ali Naqvi, and has submitted the documents i. e. The Cheque No. 514001 dated 7-6-1978 of Saving Account No. 2716 which was sent by the National Bank of Pakistan, Krishan Nagar Branch through clearing. According to the witness on i.e-7-1978 he tried to make use of his good offices on the appellant for the recovery of the amount and to make good the loss suffered by the Bank but in spite of his best efforts and pursuance, the appellant denied the allegations. According to the witness on the information, the Account Holder Mr. Bashir Ahmad Qamer contacted him and denied the issuance of cheque of Rs. 0,000 and its collection through National Bank of Pakistan. This witness was also cross-examined at length by the represen--tative of the appellant. Third prosecution witness is Imdad Hussain Account--ant of Muslim Commercial Bank, Lahore Cantt. Branch, who had submit--ted a photostat copy of detailed position of the branch showing the position of the staff on leave during the month of June, 1978 especially in three closings i. e. Closing in May, 1978, June, 1978 monthly and June, 1978 half yearly. According to him mostly the staff members of the Branch were on leave and, therefore, every person was working in excessive of his own duties. After this the statement of Intizar Ali Anjum, appellant was recorded. On the basis of the statement of the above three prosecution witnesses coupled with the documents, the Enquiry Officer has rightly found the appellant guilty. No doubt the prosecution could produce some other witnesses also but the evidence available on the record is sufficient to prove the allegations against the appellant. The evidence of Sardar Mujibullah is direct evidence as he had held the preliminary enquiry against the appellant. No personal grudge or enmity has been alleged by the appellant against~ the prosecution witnesses. The opinion of Mr. Zaka A Malik, Hand-/A writing Expert also goes against the appellant. The Labour Court accepted this opinion and the Presiding Officer after comparing the docu--ments also, came to the same conclusion. The conduct of the appellant also goes against him. According to the prosecution during the preliminary enquiry the appellant under the excuse of easing himself went to the bathroom and succeeded in running away through the ventilator.
5. After going through the relevant material available on the record I have reached the conclusion that the impugned decision of the Labour Court is perfectly correct and requires no interference. Consequently this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed,