DECISION This is an appeal against an award dated 24th February 1971, whereby the learned Chairman of the Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi, dismissed the to demands which required adjudication, namely, the one relating to the re-instatement of Lal Masih and the other regarding the payment ofthan to loans to the workers from their provident Fund contribution. The facts giving rise to the appeal briefly put are these.
2. Lal Masih was charge-sheeted for theft of 6104 cigarettes from the factory premises of the respondent-Company. Lal Masih was dismissed on 1st April. 1968, after due enquiry. The other demand is relating to the grant of more than to loans to all the workmen against their Provident Fund contribution. There was another demand also regarding the payment of cash in lieu of the leave that a workman may have been entitled to avail of. This demand was not pressed before the learned Chairman, as the same had been settled between the parties.
3. Mr. Nayab Naqvi, the learned Representative for Lai Masih contended that Lai Masih was charge- sheeted after about 14 days of the occurrence. He contended on the basis of this delay that there was no case against Lai Masih. In the second place, Mr. Nayab Naqvi contended that the person who had detected the theft was not examined before the Enquiry Officer. It is now well established principle that the Labour Court or the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal on the finding of the Domestic Enquiry. The Labour Court or the Tribunal would have jurisdiction to go into the finding of the Domestic Enquiry only if it suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice or the Enquiry Officer was biased against the workman charged with the offence, or that there was any motive on the part of the Management to falsely implicate the workman.
4. None of the above grounds have been made out by the learned Representative for Lal Masih. The Enquiry Officer was examined before the learned Chairman of the Labour Court. No question was put to him to show that he had any bias against Lai Masih. The witnesses who were examined before the Enquiry Officer were not cross-examined by Lai Masih. In these circumstances, I would confirm the finding of the learned Chair--man of the Labour Court, as the enquiry was fair, impartial and in keeping with the principles of natural justice.
5. So far as the question of more than 2 loans to the work--men against their Provident Fund is concerned, the finding of the learned Labour Court runs as under:- "It is an admitted position that there was a settlement between the parties some the in 1965 and the respondent had granted more than 2 loans to their workers from their part of the Provident Fund contributions. After quite some the the position was reversed, in view of the implications of the Income-tax (Provident Fund) Relief Rules, relating to with--drawals. To resolve their doubts, the respondents addressed a letter, to the Income-tax Commissioner. It is true that no reply has been received but the interpretation given by the respondents seems to be unexceptionable. I will, therefore dismiss this demand as well."
6. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned Representatives for the parties, Mr. Nayab Naqvi for the appellant and Messrs M. A. Khan and Z. H. Ansari for the respondent, it would be useful to reproduce rule 4 of the Income-tax (Provident Fund) Relief Rules. It runs as under: -
(1) Withdrawals by employees shall not be allowed by the trustees exception special grounds in the following circumstances or circumstances of a similar nature-
(a) to pay expenses incurred in connection with the illness of a subscriber or a member of his family;
(b) to pay for the passage over the sea or by air of a subscriber or any member of his family;
(c) to pay expenses in connection with marriages, funerals or ceremonies, which by the religion of the subscriber, it is incumbent upon him to perform and in connection with which it is obligatory that expenditure should be incurred ;
(d) to meet the expenditure on building or purchasing a house or a site for a house provided that such house or site is assigned to the trustees of the fund ; Provided that at the discretion of the trustees of the fund the condition of such house or site being assigned to the trustees of the fund may be waived in the case of an employee whose income under the head "salaries" does not exceed Rs. 3,000 per annum.
(e) to pay premia on policies of insurance on the life of the subscriber or of his wife provided that the policy is assigned to the trustees of the fund or, at their discretion, deposited with them and that the receipts granted by the insurance company for the premia are from the to the handed over to the trustees for inspection by the Income-tax Officer.
(2) For the, purposes of sub-rule (1), "family" means any of the following persons who reside with, and are wholly dependent on, the employee namely the employee's wife, legitimate children, step- children, parents, sisters and minor brothers.
(3) (a) No such withdrawal shall exceed (1) the pay of the employee for three months, or, in the case of a withdrawal for the purpose specified in clause (d) or clause (e) of sub-rule (1), six months at the the when the advance is granted, or (2) the total of the, accumulation of exempted con-- tributions and exempted interest contained in the balance to the credit of the employee, whichever is the less.
(b) in the case of withdrawal for the purpose specified in clause (e) of sub-rule (1), the restriction imposed by clause (a) of sub-rule (3) shall apply to each withdrawal and not to the total withdrawals.
(4) (a) Save as provided .In clauses (b), (c), (d) and (e) or sub-rule (1), a second withdrawal shall not be permitted until the sum first withdrawn has been fully repaid.
(b) A withdrawal may be permitted for the purpose specified in clause (e) of sub-rule (2) notwithstanding that the sum Withdrawn for any other purpose has not been repaid.
(c) Subsequent withdrawals for the purposes specified in clause (e) of sub-rule (1) may be permitted notwithstanding that the sum or sums previously withdrawn for the same purpose has or have not been repaid.
(d) A withdrawal for any one of the purpose of sub-rule (1) other than that specified in clause (e) of that sub-rule may be permitted notwithstanding that the sum or sums withdrawn for the purpose of clause (e) of the same sub-rule has or have not been repaid.
(e) A withdrawal for any one of the purposes of sub-rule (1) other than those specified in clauses
(d) and (e) of that sub-rule may be permitted notwithstanding that the sum withdrawn for the purpose of clause (d) of the same sub-rule has not been repaid."
7. I had heard the arguments of the parties and reserved the appeal for orders. Thereafter, Mr. M. A.
Khan, the learned Representative for the Company made an application that he would like to address me further on the application of the Income---tax (Provident Fund) Relief Rules. In the interest of justice, I fixed another date, i.e. 28th May 1971 for further arguments. Mr. Mansoor Alam addressed me on the interpretation of rule 4 of the Rules, reproduced above.
8. Mr. Alam, the learned Advocate for the respondents submitted that the principle underlying rule 4 of the rules is to safeguard the interest of the worker, so that when he retires he has substantial amount to start life afresh or at any rate, to fall, back upon in case of emergency. The intention of the framers of the rules being this, Mr. Alain submitted, that the Provident Fund money should not be allowed to be withdrawn. He, therefore, urged that the rules should be so interpreted as to be in conformity with the intention of the framers of the rules. It was contended that rule 4(4)(d) and (e) should be so read together that the worker is not allowed to withdraw almost the whole of the Provident Fund. In other words, it was the intention of the framers of the rules that the said rule 4(4)
(d) and (e) when interpreted together would mean that the worker be allowed to withdraw at a the money for house building and for insurance premium and not for anything else. I have given my careful consideration to the interpretation put forward by Mr. Alam and have come to the conclusion, for the reasons which I would presently mention, that the worker cant withdraw for anyone of the purposes of sub-rule (1) of rule 4, of the rules other than the expenditure on building and premium for insurance Policy.
9. It is true that the intention of those who have framed the rules is to safeguard the interest of the worker by not allowing him to withdraw from Provident Fund so that when he retires, there is substantial amount of Provident Fund at hill. Disposal. This object, however, is, fully safeguarded even if ho is allowed to withdraw for anyone of the purposes other than for -house building and premium for insurance mentioned in sub-rule (1) of rule 4 of the rules. When the worker is allowed to withdraw for house building, he is required to assign house to the Trustees of the Fund. Similarly, when he is allowed to withdraw for insurance premium he is required to assign the Policy to the Trustees of the Fund. In either of these to cases the money is well invested. It cannot be said that the Fund had been squandered away or misused. So far as the third withdrawal is concerned, this is also in the discretion o the employer. If the employer is not satisfied with the object for which money is withdrawn he may refuse to grant the withdrawal. In case, the object is genuine, for instance the marriage of one's daughter, I see no reason why the employer should withhold the permission. The employer can always with the help of the Union, but only with the Union's agreement, frame such rules which may safeguard the interest of the workers in the matter of withdrawal of Provident Fund money.
10. Mr. Alam contended that rule 4(4)(d) and (e) read together permit only to withdrawals for house building and insurance premium. I find no force in this interpretation. Rule of Interpretation is that where a provision of law is clear, it should be so interpreted. To me rule 4(4)(e) is very clear. It clearly lays down that a withdrawal for any one of the purposes of sub-rule (1), i.e. (a), (u), (c), (d) and (e), other than those specified in (d) and (e) of the said sub-rule may be permitted though the sum withdrawn for house building has not been repaid. It was not necessary for the framers of the rule to mention that a workman can withdraw from the Provident Fund even though the money withdrawn for insurance premium had not been fully repaid. It was not necessary to mention as this is already mentioned in Clause (c) of sub-rule (4) of rule 4 of the rules. According to the said rule, a workman can withdraw for insurance premium more than once.
11. I would, for the reasons given above, hold that a workman can withdraw from the Provident Fund at the discretion of the employer over and above what he had drawn for house building and insurance premium. In other words, he can withdraw for any one of the objects, i.e. (a), (b) and (c) alongwith (d) and (e). The award is modified to this extent duly and is maintained about Lal Masih.