' The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 4-12-1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,5, Faisalabad, accepting the grievance petition of Muhammad Ammar Khan (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) and directing his re- instatement in service without back benefits. The respondent has in his appeal claimed back benefits, whereas Muslim Commercial Bank (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of re-instatement. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that Rs,1,000 were delivered to him for being deposited in the account of the complainant and he issued receipt and entered the amount in the pass book of the account-holder but did not make entry of the deposit of the amount in the ledger and thus misappropriated the amount. The respondent admitted that he did receive the amount, issued receipt, entered the amount in the pass book and did not enter in the ledger. His plea was that after half an hour the amount had been taken back by the account-holder as it was needed by him and as he had sent the pass book and the receipt to his village, entry made in the pass book could not be scored off and receipt destroyed. His plea was rightly not accepted by the learned lower Court. If the complainant had taken back the amount, he would not have made complaint against the respondent. No doubt, Allah Ditta, complainant, appeared as defence witness and supported the plea of the appellant but what he said is not believable and was rightly rejected by the Enquiry Officer and the learned lower Court. If in reality Allah Ditta, complainant, had taken back Rs,1,000 from the respondent and had by that time sent the receipt and pass book to his village, the respondent may have taken a Kacha receipt of Rs,1,000 from him. Even a loose cheque of Rs,1,000 could be taken from Allah Ditta, complainant by the respondent. It appears that Allah Ditta gave false statement, on the asking of the respondent to save his service.
3. So far as the technical defects are concerned, the finding of the learned lower Court is wrong. So far as the charge-sheet is concerned it was rightly issued by the Zonal Chief. The cashiers belong to category-II. According to Appendix-I of M.C.B. Rule, 1981 page 60 column 14, Zonal Heads are competent to issue charge-sheets and appoint Enquiry Officer. According to item 12 page 59, heads of Circle Offices are competent to punish class-II officer. No doubt, the incident of fraud took place in 1980 before the M.C.B. Rules were framed in 1981 but the rules were in force when the question of charge-sheeting and awarding punishment arose. So, no legal flaw can be found so far as charge-sheet and dismissal order are concerned and the learned lower Court erred in holding that they were ordered by incompetent authorities. Most probably the rules were not shown to the learned lower Court. I have carefully gone through the enquiry proceedings and have found them quite in order. The respondent was given proper opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and to produce defence. Second show-cause notice too was given. There is, however, no provision of personal hearing in para. 258(5) of 1st Wage Commission Award. The only requirement is that the statement of the employee alongwith the enquiry report is to be sent to the competent authority which was done.
4. As a result, the appeal of the appellant is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court regarding re-instatement, the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed.
' As the very grievance petition has been dismissed, no question of back benefits arises. So the appeal of the respondent is dismissed.