DECISION ' These are two cross-appeals arising from the judgment of Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the grievance petition of Amjad Hussain Choudhry was partly allowed sand he was ordered to be re-instated for the purpose of holding a fresh domestic enquiry but he was not granted the back benefits, while the employers Pakistan International Airlines Corporation have filed appeal against this temporary re-instatement, the employee Amjad Hussain Choudhry has filed appeal against the order for withholding the back benefits.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the employee Amjad Hussain Choudhry was appointed as Accounts Assistant in P.I.A. On 1-4-1977 in Group-IV. During the course of his duties he was found to have prepared forged Bills and Cash Memos. In the name of Subhan a Petty Contractor of P.I.A. And also 17 other vouchers regarding office equipment and 2 other vouchers of claiming mileage allowance. These vouchers were cashed and an amount of Rs,3,13,045 were found to have been misappropriated. During the preliminary enquiry the statement of Amjad Hussain Choudhry was recorded and he made confession regarding this defalcation. He was then charge-sheeted and 20 witnesses were examined against him during the domestic enquiry. He cross-examined some of these witnesses but declined to cross-examine some other witnesses though full opportunity to cross-examine was allowed to him by the Enquiry Officer. This fact has been admitted in his cross- examination by Amjad Hussain Choudhry. He admits that the Enquiry Officer wrote down "no cross- examination by the defendant, opportunity given" and under this he admits to have signed this statement. He admits that he cross-examined P.Ws. 3 and 5 but not P.W. 4 likewise he had not cross-examined P.Ws. 6 and 7 and signed these statements where no cross-examination was written by the Enquiry Officer.
3. The learned Labour Court framed issue No, 2 whether the charge of committing fraud in respect of Rs,3,13,045 had been proved and his finding was that these pay vouchers appeared to have been clearly forged and the amount of Rs,3,13,045 had been misappropriated. That the petitioner Amjad Hussain Choudhry had committed this fraud for which he was charge-sheeted by notice dated 22-7-1990. That this amount was found to have been misappropriated even by the Investigation Officer of P.I.A. And on his report the above show-cause notice was issued to him. In the preliminary investigation petitioner Amjad Choudhry had accepted his guilt in the presence of witnesses. His statement was recorded and entered in the preliminary report. The applicant was given opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses but he did not avail of the opportunity. The petitioner had signed each page of the statement of P.Ws. In the domestic enquiry. The finding of the learned Labour Court on this issue is "I have gone through the enquiry proceedings and on careful examination of 20 prosecution witnesses and record of the respondent and find that the charge of fraud of Rs,3,13,045 has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and the Enquiry Officer has rightly decided the enquiry against the applicant. In view of the above discussion' I hold that the charges of committing fraud of Rs,3,13,045 has been proved against the applicant".
However the learned Labour Court found that certain witnesses for the prosecution had not been cross-examined by the petitioner though he had admitted signatures on each page of the enquiry proceedings but just because, the petitioner has alleged that he had not been given "a fair" opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses the Labour Court directed a fresh enquiry for the purpose of cross-examination and meanwhile ordered re-instatement of the petitioner without allowing back benefits as he thought the back benefits depended on the findings of the Enquiry Officer after allowing cross-examination.
4. It has been rightly argued by Mr. Amir Malik, Advocate for P.I.A. That if an opportunity was allowed to the petitioner to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and he -had cross-examined some of the witnesses but not the others and signed all the statements, there is no reason why a fresh enquiry should be ordered under the circumstances. The opportunity given for cross-examination is enough compliance with the principles of natural justice and it is not obligatory for the Labour Court to direct a fresh enquiry just because the petitioner now wants to cross-examine the witness whom he had declined to cross-examine formerly. Having come to the conclusion that the petitioner as Assistant Cashier had committed misappropriation of more than three lacs, there was no need to re-open the evidence on this issue.
' Mr. Muhammad Nishat Warsi for Mr. M.L. Shahani has on the other hand argued that the defalcation took place in the year 1989 but the charge-sheet was given on 22-7-1990 after more than 30 days' time allowed under the Standing Order 15(4) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. To this Mr Amir Malik replies that the defalcation was reported to the Managing Director after the report of the preliminary enquiry. That the petitioner had confessed his guilt during the preliminary enquiry. He had therefore knowledge of the enquiry even before the report was submitted to the Managing Director that since during the preliminary enquiry the applicant had admitted his guilt no prejudice is caused to the applicant if the show-cause notice was delayed but in this case show-cause notice was issued on 22-7-1990 after preliminary enquiry of which the applicant had knowledge. It has been decided by the learned Labour Court that the show- cause notice therefore cannot be said to have been time-barred and I can see no reason to hold otherwise.
6. In the result the order of the Labour Court regarding reinstatement of the petitioner in service within 30 days and holding a fresh enquiry within two months is set aside. The respondent having been found guilty could not be reinstated in service. The question of payment of any back benefits will not therefore arise nor is it necessary to hold a fresh enquiry. Both the appeals are disposed of in terms of this order.