The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 2-8-1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to be re- instated in service without back benefits. The respondent has brought cross-objections claiming back benefits which are being disposed of alongwith the appeal.
2. The allegation on which the respondent was dismissed from service was that his relative Bashir Ahmad had asked him to open account in his name. He, accordingly, opened the account and thereafter, with--drew Rs. 5,000 by means of four cheques and misappropriated the amount. After Bashir Ahmad, account-holder had lodged the complaint, the respondent paid the amount to him.
On the complaint of Bashir Ahmad, the respondent was charge-sheeted and an enquiry was held which culminated in his dismissal.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised legal objections to the maintainability of this appeal which I want to tackle first. First objection is that the appeal is by Senior Vice-President but the memo. Of appeal bears the signatures of two officers whose designation is not given but they are not Senior Vice-Presidents. Mr. M. S.. Bokhari, Advocate, also signed the memo. Of appeal but was authorised by the two officers whose signatures appear on the memo: of appeal. The learned counsel says that since the appeal is from the Senior Vice-President, either he himself should have signed the memo. Of appeal or should have authorised the two officers and Mr. M. S. Bokhari who put signatures on the appeal. An affidavit of Executive Vice-President Mr. A. Rashid Mian has been brought to the effect that he had authorised the two officers to bring and sign the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent says that firstly the Executive Vice-President, not being the employer of the respondent, could not authorise anyone to lodge the appeal and secondly the affidavit is not sufficient power of attorney, a letter of authority should have been executed by him. Admittedly, the Executive Vice-President is above the Senior Vice-President and could authorise any officer to bring the appeal. However, be should have executed a letter of authority in favour of the officers and the learned counsel for the appellant authorising to sign and present the appeal. Instead of bringing the affidavit the letter of authority, if any, issued by Mr. A. Rashid Mian, Executive Vice- President, should have been brought on the record. But in spite of it,, it cannot be said that the appeal is incompetent. The two officers who signed the memo. Of appeal are Messrs Farooq Shah and Munawar Ahmad. A general power of attorney from the Board of Directors in favour of the said two officers is on the record. It includes the authority to sue an appeal and sign the pleadings etc. It has, been argued on behalf of the respondent that the Senior Vice-President Mr. Ziaullah did not want to challenge the learned lower Court's order. Therefore, he did not authorise any officer to lodge the appeal. May it be so, but it did not prevent the higher authority to get the appeal preferred. Rather there was every justification for the Executive Vice-President to authorise some other officer to lodge the appeal. 1, therefore, hold that the appeal is quite competent.
4. The grievance petition was manifestly time-barred. An application for condonation of delay was made but the reasons are not cogent. Grievance notice was given on 8-8-1977 but the grievance petition was presented on 8-5-1978. The period expired on 23-10-1977. It was delayed by about seven months. Before the service of grievance notice the respondent had been making appeals.
The last appeal is dated 21-1-1977. Within two months and fifteen days of the service of grievance notice the grievance petition should have been brought. After the period had expired, he sent another reminder on 21-4-1978 Exh. F.,16. The appeal did not lie when the limitation had long ago, expired. The appeal Exh. P-16 therefore, is not helpful. So the petition was hopelessly time-barred.
Delay was wrongly condoned.
5. Even on merits the respondent has no case. Enquiry was properly held. The respondent did apply for changing the Enquiry Office but no grounds were given which led him to lose confidence in him.
Simply saying that he had no confidence was not sufficient. It has been argued that request for summoning defence witnesses was made but they were not summoned. After the close of the prosecution evidence the respondent stated in answer to the question of the Enquiry Officer that he would give his own statement. He did not say that he would produce witnesses or that they be summoned. In reality he had not to examine any witness. Opening of account in the name of Bashir Ahmad was admitted. The factum of operating the account was also admitted in answer to second show-cause notice. However, he pleaded that he did not know if he could operate the account. He also said that he had returned the amount to Bashir Ahmad. So misappropriation was admitted. If he had not utilised or returned the amount, no question of retaining the amount could arise. He said that he operated the account in good faith. He withdrew the amount and utilised it.
Was it a good .Faith ? No doubt, the complpainant was not examined at the enquiry but in view of the admission made by the respondent, it was not necessary. The complainant was examined by the respondent before the lower Court but he did not help him. He rather said that the respondent had told him that he had with--drawn the amount and had spent it and would return it. He did not say that he had allowed the respondent to operate the account. He proved the complaint Exh. R-I also.
6. The case was duly proved and the learned lower Court wrongly directed the re-instatement of this respondent in service.
7. As upshot of what has been said above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the. Learned lower Court, dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent on merits as well as being time-- barred. Since the very grievance petition has been dismissed, no question of back benefits arises, The cross-objections, therefore, are dismissed.