DECISION ' This appeal arises from the order of Fourth Sindh Labour -Court, Karachi, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for re-instatement.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant was a permanent employee of BASF Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., since 1971. The Management had insured all its employees with M/s. Jubilee Insurance Company Limited, who had covered all medical expenses recoverable from the Management.
3. The appellant had submitted two medical charges receipts in the sum of Rs,600 and Rs,500 respectively. The first being in respect of the medical treatment of his two sons during 2-4-1991 to 15-4-1991 and the other relating to medical treatment of the appellant himself from 15-4-1991 to 30-4-1991. These bills were sent by the Office to the Insurance Company in normal routine. On 18-7- 1991 the Insurance Company informed the B.A.S.F. Management that both the medical bills were forged and bogus and had not been signed by Dr. Muhammad Sultan Qureshi and that the claim was fictitious. The Management issued charge-sheet to the appellant in respect of these two bills in addition to some other charges of late-coming etc. The appellant was found guilty after domestic enquiry and he was dismissed from service. The appellant filed his grievance before the Labour Court and the Court found that the bills were not issued by Dr. Muhammad Sultan Qureshi nor were they issued under his directions, there being no details of any illness or treatment for which the bills were issued. These were actually issued by one Shah Alam, Dispenser, and were bogus. The learned Labour Court, after recording complete evidence, found that the appellant was guilty of misconduct and his grievance petition was, accordingly, dismissed. Against that order he has preferred this appeal.
4. During domesqe enquiry the letter of New Jubilee Insurance Company Limited addressed to M/s. B.A.S.F. Pakistan (Private) Limited dated July 18, 1991 has been produced. It is mentioned in this letter that on verification the receipts of Rs,500 and Rs,600 from Dr. Muhammad Sultan Qureshi for his treatment and the treatment of his two sons were found to be fictitious and Dr. Muhammad Sultan Qureshi has denied having signed them.
5. The receipts in question dated 15-4-1991 and 2-4-1991 under letterheads of Dr. Muhammad Sultan Qureshi appear to be forged documents. The signature is mere initial which is not legible. No details of any decease nor any treatment is given. Then there is letter from Dr. Muhammad Sultan Qureshi that these two receipts "are not signed by me. Moreover we issue detailed bills".
6. Dr. Muhammad Sultan Qureshi was examined as a witness by the Labour Court. He has stated in his evidence that they issue details of all the payment received from the patient in the bill/cash memo. Regarding the receipts in question the Doctor has stated that the parties mentioned in these receipts were not examined or treated by him. That no account has been produced in this regard to show the details of the illness and treatment given to the patients mentioned in the two receipts. At the same time the Doctor has tried to save his own Dispenser by stating that the receipts are not false and fabricated. In a letter issued by him one year after the incident on 8-4- 1992 the Doctor stated that these receipts in question were issued by staff of the Clinic though they were not signed by him. From the above evidence it is clear that the two receipts claimed by the appellant were not signed by the Doctor himself nor were they written under his directions. The patient's name do not appear in any Registers of the Clinic, Indoor or Outdoor. The Doctor had not stated that he had authorised Shah Alam or any other staff-member to issue such receipts. The receipts are not, therefore, genuine. The claim of Rs,1,100 based on such receipts, on the face of it, was a bogus claim and the appellant has, therefore, rightly been found guilty and dismissed from service.
7. The decision of the Labour Court is, therefore, correct and I can see no reason for interference.
The decision as maintained and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.