DECISION This appeal arises from the order of Fourth Sind Labour Court, Karachi allowing the grievance petition of Syed Naeemul Haq for reinstatement and back benefits.
2. The facts in brief are that respondent Naeemul Haq had joined the Steel Mills in the year 1976 as Technical skilled worker. He was subsequently promoted as Assistant Manager on a salary of Rs.12,000 per month. In the year 1988 one Shamim Ahmad working in the Pakistan Steel Mills was found in need of bone narrow transfer because he was suffering from Lukeina. Syed Naeemul Haq in those days was General Secretary of the Union and C.B.A. He was very active worker and he managed to get the expenses for the treatment of this workman abroad, sanctioned by the Steel Mills. Mr. Shamim Ahmed was accordingly sent to London for treatment and a draft for 1,500 pounds was sent to the High Commissioner for Pakistan in the U.K. For expenses. As the amount was insufficient respondent Naeemul Haq arranged for issue of another cheque on Allied Bank for the amount of Rs.3,02,037. Naeemul Haq received this cheque dated 25-4-1988 from Steel Mills General Manager Accounts Branch. It is very strange that a cheque for such huge amount was issued as a bearer cheque. Since Shamim Ahmed was not in a position to receive the cheque himself, Mr. Naeemul Haq received this cheque on behalf of Shamim Ahmed and signed a regular typed receipt as General Secretary, Pakistan Steel Peoples Workers' Union, C.B.A. This receipt was kept on the record, and the General Manager, Accounts thought that his responsibility for payment of the cheque to Shamim Ahmed was over. The amount of this cheque never reached wife of Shamim Ahmed who was accompanying him in London and Shamim Ahmed died. On return to complained that she had not received this amount and it was found that the Pakistan High Commission had also not received any such amount. A preliminary enquiry .Was, therefore, ordered and an Audit Report was also sought. It was eventually found that this entire amount was misappropriated and not given for treatment to Shamim Ahmed. Respondent Naeemul Haq who had taken this cheque was confronted and he replied that he had passed on the cheque to Shakeel Ahmed who was head of the Committee arranging Shamim Ahmed's treatment in U.K.
Eventually the respondent Naeemul Haq was charge-sheeted on 25-8-1992 and an enquiry was held against him under the Steel Mills Officers Rules. He was then dismissed by an order dated 24- 1-1993.
3. The learned Labour Court found that this charge-sheet had been served long after the incident of misappropriation and not within thirty days as required under Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The learned Labour Court also held that the respondent-petitioner was a workman under the I.R.O. And enquiry had to be held according to procedure laid down in Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The Court accordingly reinstated Syed Naeemul Haq with back benefits. Against this order the Pakistan Steel Mills have filed this appeal.
4. Enquiry Report is to the effect that as intimated by Pakistan High Commission, U.K., pounds 19,285.77 was the total expenses of the surgery. Pounds 15,000 had been received from Pakistan Steel and pounds 4,285.77 balance had still to be paid. From this the Enquiry Officer found that Rs.3,02,037 had not reached Shamim Ahmed and they were misappropriated by (1) Naeemul Haq,
(2) Shakeel Ahmed, (3) Athar Abbas and (4) Maroof Ahmed and they were all guilty of misconduct.
Naeemul Haq was accordingly charge-sheeted and enquiry was held against him. Naeemul Haq in reply to the charge-sheet stated that he had not encashed that cheque nor had he received the cash proceeds. That when the receipt of the cheque was shown to Naeemul Haq he admitted his signature. Naeemul Haq explained that Shakeel Ahmed was liable for this misappropriation.
5. The receipt of the cheque is in the following words: "Received bearer Cheque No. 5001083, dated 5-4-1988 amounting to Rs.3,02,037 (Rupees three lacs to thousand thirty-seven only) issued on Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd., Pakistan Steel Mills Branch, in favour of Mr. Shamim Ahmed. Turner (P. No. (sic)) in lieu of balance Pound 9,000 (converted Q Rs.3,02,037) or arranging Foreign Exchange on his behalf Mr. Shamim who is reported to be seriously ill and cannot move to receive the cheque personally from Accounts Department."
6: This is a domestic enquiry and it is not a criminal prosecution for breach of trust. The only question worth consideration in such proceedings is whether the accused is guilty of misconduct.
7. The burden of proof regarding the accused being a worker under the I.R.O. Or an officer, lies on the worker himself. Apart from his designation as Assistant Manager his status depending on the pay received by him as Rs.12,000 per month, is admitted. According to his own evidence there is the following admission in his cross-examination before the Labour Court in cross-examination to Mr. Abdus Samad, Advocate for the Steel Mills: "It is correct that Supervisor, Foremen and Clerks used to work under me. It is correct that my enquiry was conducted under Officers Rules of Pakistan Steel. I cannot say whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain my case. I do not know whether the High Court of Sind has decided that Assistant Manager, Deputy Manager and Foreman are governed by the Master and Servant Rules. It is incorrect to suggest that I was rightly dismissed from service according to the rules of Pakistan Steel and this Court no jurisdiction. "
8. Thus, it is admitted that supervisor, foreman and clerks used to work under demand the enquiry was conducted under Officers Rules of Pakistan Steel. The question of charge-sheet being the- barred under Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders, therefore, does not arise. By his own admission the respondent falls in the category of Pakistan Steel Executive Grade-II and the Labour Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain his petition. . --
9. Even if he has not misappropriated the amount himself and Shakil Ahmed has done so, that does not absolve him from responsibility to see that the amount reached the sick person Shamim Ahmed in London expeditiously and without any loss of the. That the amount had not reached the sickman must have been in his knowledge. Therefore, apart from the technical grounds of misappropriation the respondent is clearly liable for gross negligence. In this connection I would also observe that the General Manager Accounts who disbursed this huge amount exceeding Rs.4,00,000 should have sent the amount directly to the High Commission in London and should not have tried to make himself popular bypassing on a bearer cheque for this amount to Union Officer.
I am not able to understand why no action for this negligence has been initiated against him also.
10. For the reasons stated above the appeal of the Pakistan Steel Mills is, allowed and the order of the Labour Court is set aside. The back benefits if any deposited in this Tribunal may be refunded to the Steel Mills after thirty days.