' The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 14th February, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 5, Faisalabad, directing the re-instatement of Mumtaz Hussain Rizvi (hereinafter to be called the respondent) in service without back benefits.
The United Bank Limited (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of re-instatement, whereas the respondent has in his appeal claimed back benefits. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are been disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The allegation against the respondent as contained in the charge-sheet Exh. P. 3 is that he intentionally did not deduct 'Zakat' from S. B. Account No, 5835. His reply to the charge-sheet was not considered satisfactory, so enquiry was held which culminated in his dismissal from service.
3. So far as merits of the case are concerned, the respondent was wrongly dismissed, inasmuch as the charge of not deducting 'Zakat' from S. B. Account No, 5835 was not established. As a matter of fact, the respondent was not deputed to deduct `Zakat' but was deputed to check the ledgers to see if `Zakat' bad been deducted and if so, correctly and properly. No evidence that he was allotted any accounts for deduction of 'Zakat'. Also no evidence was produced during the enquiry, if the accounts of the wife and uncle of the respondent were allotted to him even for checking. Only Exh.
R. 1 writing is on the record and it is said that it bears the signatures of the respondent and this statement was made by him. The respondent, however, disowned this statement. Even if this statement is taken to be of the respondent, it does not contain any such confession that may prove the charge contained in the charge-sheet. In Exh. R. 1 it is said that he did not get `Zakat' deducted from the account of his wife as the amount belongs to some one else and was to be returned after few days and so far as the account of his uncle was concerned, he had asked Mr. Hussain to deduct `Zakat' carefully. There is no much charge against the respondent.
4. The grievance petition is said to be time-barred. The learned lower Court has relied upon copy of appeal Exh. P.
7. It purports to have been received on 26th October, 1981. In cross-examination it was suggested to R. W. 2 that Exh. P. 7 was bearing the signatures of Yousaf who was deputed as Manager when R. W.
2 was suspended. R. W. 2 said he could not say if Exh. P. 7 was hearing the signatures of Yousaf.
Since the name of the officer who is alleged by the res-pondent to have received appeal copy of which is Exh. P. 7, the said Yousaf should have been examined by the appellant to deny his signatures on Exh. P.
7. So the evidence of P. W. 1 that Yousaf had signed the receipt stands unrebutted. The learned lower Court has treated the telegram alleged to have been sent by the respondent as a grievance notice. The date of telegram is 7th April, 1982. Receipt of telegram is Exh. P.
11. It carries the date as 7/4 in ink although in the seal the date is not decipherable. The respondent applied to the Director, T' & T for the supply of text of telegram but he replied that being time- barred, the record of telegram had been destroyed. This reply and the receipt of telegram Exh. P. 11 amply show that such a telegram was given on 7th April, 1982. This telegram has been treated by the learned lower Court as a grievance notice. From the date of the said telegram, the petition lodged on 24th May, 1982 is within time.
5. Since the respondent did not give a regular grievance notice and telegram sent by him for the early decision of his appeal has been treated, as a grievance notice, he has been rightly disallowed back benefits.
6. As a result, both the appeals are dismissed having no substance.