DECISION ' This appeal is directed against the order of Sindh Labour Court No,VI, Hyderabad whereby grievance petition of one Muhammad Usman Rajar for re-instatement was allowed with full back benefits. The facts are that the respondent Muhammad Usman Rajar was appointed as a messenger and later on promoted as Assistant Store-Keeper. He served the company for about 20 years. During the period of this service the respondent met with a traffic accident resulting in fracture of his leg. He was referred for treatment to the Medical Officer and he was being paid the medicine bills by way of reimbursement. On 15-11-1989 the respondent made an application to the Director of the Company that he was being discriminated against regarding payments of his bill, because he happened to be a Sindhi; that his bill for May, 1989 was received by him after a delay of six months and his bill for November, 1988 was kept pending and was not received by him till the date of his application. On verification it was found that his bill in respect of medicines purchases on 26-11-1988 and given by him for reimbursement on 28-11-1988 was duly paid on 29th November, 1988 and the receipt was signed by the respondent himself. Medicine Cash Memo. Has been produced in the proceedings as R/21 and the bill receipt has been produced as R/22 showing the details of the same medical bill. Since the respondent had filed his claim for this bill over again having received the payment already, this was considered by the company to be an act of misconduct within the meaning of Order 15 of Standing Orders. Section 15(3) is as under:-- "The following acts and omission shall be treated as misconduct:-
(b) Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employer's business or property."
2. The management considered the act of claiming payment for the same bill over again, to be an act of dishonesty. The respondent was therefore charge-sheeted on 13-12-1989. In reply to charge- sheet the respondent stated that this was a conspiracy to remove him from service, and his true claim has been falsified. He further stated that his medicine bill had been suppressed on purpose.
After this attitude on the part of the respondent he was subjected to a domestic enquiry and he was dismissed from service of the company on 23rd September, 1990. The respondent after the grievance notice filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court. The Labour Court considered the case and came to the conclusion that the punishment was out of proportion to the degree of misconduct and the respondent was therefore reinstated in service with full back benefits. Against that order the appellants Sandoz (Pakistan) Limited have filed this appeal.
3. It has been argued by Mr. Muhammad Humayun on behalf of the appellant company that they had no grudge of any sort against respondent who had been continuing in service of the company for about 20 years but the respondent had misbehaved by preferring a false claim and demanding double payment for medicine bill which had already been reimbursed to him. By this act the respondent had lost confidence of the company as a person committing fraud and he was therefore dismissed after a regular enquiry. These foreign companies have been found to be an allergic even to a slight not smelling of dishonesty. As this is a healthy trend there should be no interference with their discretion to terminate the services of an employee for any act involving moral turpitude. The decision of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed. The back benefits deposited in this Tribunal will be returned to the appellants.