DECISION This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad, dated 5-10-1986, whereby he allowed the grievance petitions filed by the respondents and ordered their reinstatement.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents were employees of the appellants. On 20th and 30th March, 1985 they are alleged to have made fraudulent entries in the Gross Weight and Tare Register in respect of Token No,126, Indent No, 12092 in the name of Rehmatullah and in respect of Token No, 9, Indent No, 15522 also in the name of Rehmatullah. They were charge- sheeted on 8-4-1985, and after due enquiry their services were terminated by order, dated 30-6- 1985. Both of them served grievance notices upon the appellants and thereafter filed grievance petitions which were allowed by the learned Presiding Officer by the single impugned order.
3. I have heard Mr. NA. Talpur, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, Advocate for the respondents.
4. Mr. Talpur does not press his appeal against respondent Mughees Ahmed, therefore, the appeal against Mughecs Ahmed is dismissed.
5. With regard to Muzaffar Iqbal, the main reliance is placed upon his statement before the Enquiry Officer wherein he had admitted, that he had made these entries. He had further admitted, that he had taken two indents in the name of Rehmatullah through his brother Mr. Muhammad Ali, Cane Supervisor to help his friends M/s. Ali Nawaz & Salahuddin who were in need of money. He has further admitted that the payment in the first indent was made by Rehmatullah to him and he gave the amount to Ali Nawaz. He had further admitted, that he had given the indents on 20-3- 1985 and 30-3-1985, to M/s. All Nawaz and Salahuddin, respectively. They were also examined before the Enquiry Officer where they had admitted to have received indents from the respondent Muzaffar Iqbal and to have supplied the sugarcane against these indents because they were loanecs of the Mill and if they had supplied the cane in their name the amount would have been deducted and appropriated by respondents against their loan.
6. The main objection of Mr. Fasahat H. Rizvi is that charge does not show that the respondent had acted dishonesty. I find that in the charge-sheet it is alleged, that two entries in the register appear to be forged and that sugarcane has not be supplied and, therefore, respondent was charged with commission of an act of misconduct under clause (b)(R) and (i) of the Standing Order 15(3). The misconduct is specified in clause (b) as theft, fraud and dishonesty. Dishonesty is not defined under Standing Orders Ordinance or under any other Labour Law. However, the alleged misconduct is of a criminal nature, therefore, it will be helpful to see definition of dishonesty under the Pakistan Penal Code. Under section 24, P.P.C. a person is said to act dishonestly when he does some thing with intention of causing wrongful gain to some person or wrongful loss to another person.
7. In the instant case, if Mr. Ali Nawaz and Mr. Salahuddin had supplied the cane in their names, admittedly, they would not have received the money, but the amount would have been appropriated towards their loans by the appellants. From the admissions of respondent Muzaffar Iqbal, it appears, that he was conscious of this fact and, therefore, he helped his friends, who were in need of money, by getting their cane supplied in the name of Rehmatullah. Therefore, they got their prices of cane and the appellants were deprived of appropriating the same towards loan outstanding against M/s. Ali Nawaz & Salahuddin. It is a case, where above act of appellants caused wrongful gain to M/s. Ali Nawaz & Salahuddin and a wrongful loss to the appellants.
Therefore, even from admission of the respondent himself, the charge under clause (b) of Standing Order 15(3) B stands proved against the respondent. He has not denied these facts even before the Labour Court. The view of the learned trial Court, that the non-examination of Rehmatullah is fatal to the case of appellants appears to be erroneous, in view of the aforesaid admissions of the respondent.
8. Mr. Fasahat Rizvi's contention that the charge does not contain any allegation of dishonesty also does not appear to have any force. I have already pointed the contents of charge-sheet and further pointed that it is specifically shown therein, that the respondent was charged specifically with commission of misconduct under clause (b) of the Standing Order 15(3), which I have already reproduced and discussed above.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, in my opinion the charge of misconduct is proved against respondent Muzaffar Iqbal. Therefore, the appeal of appellant in respect of Muzaffar Iqbal is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Labour Court reinstating Muzaffar Iqbal is set aside.