By a judgment announced on 5-9-1995 by the Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur grievance petition field under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by Muhammad Iqbal against the General Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Circle Office, Rahim Yar Khan was dismissed; and he has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. Muhammad lqbal was brought on its rolls by the Muslim Commercial Bank Limited on 7-8-1989 and he was dismissed from service on 10-11-1994. He challenged this order by taking up a number of pleas, the same being that the charge-sheet served on him on 7-9-1994, relating to certain alleged incidents dated 19-4-1994 and 16-6-1994 was the-barred, and it was otherwise also defective, having not emanated from the employer or the appointing authority. The allegations levelled against him were baseless, and, in any case, the bank had not been defrauded and deprived of any money. The order of dismissal was the outcome of mala fides and mechanization on the part of the bank management, having adopted visibly hostile posture against the employee.
3. On the contrary, the bank took up a number of preliminary objections, the main being that no grievance notice, as required by law served upon the employer, and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter, as no right of the petitioner guaranteed or secured under any law, award settlement had been infringed. Maintainability of the petition directed against the General Manager and not against the Bank as a body corporate was also questioned. Status of the petitioner to be a workman, entitled to an industrial dispute, was also disputed. On facts, it was maintained that as Cashier Muhammad Iqbal had been found guilty of gross misconduct, in the domestic enquiry held against him, he could offer no plausible explanation orgy defence, and his removal from service, therefore, was justified:-
4. The learned Labour Court, in the style of the Civil Court, proceeded to strike certain issues, arising out of the pleadings of the parties, and undertook discussion issue-wise, on the strength of the evidence available on record, and in the light of the legal propositions involved.- Dismissal order having been passed on 10-11-1994 (Exh.P-1), the grievance notice (Exh.P-6) having been issued on- 17-11-1994, as indicated by the postal receipt (Exh.P-7) was found, and rightly so to be within the.
The appellant had initially been appointed as a Guard and after about a period of 1-1/2 years he was promoted as Cashier. He used to receive payments against electricity bills, tendered by the consumers, and prepare daily statement of accounts. Keeping in view the nature of his duties, he was rightly held to be a workman, as defined under section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Although the bank had filed certain cross-objections (on 18-12-1995), the same have not been pressed, in all seriousness, by the learned counsel, in the course of the arguments before this forum; and I do not find any fault with the correctness of the findings recorded by the Court below under issues Nos. 1 and 2.
5. As regards the charge-sheet being the-barred, as pleaded by the petitioner before the Labour Court, the objection has very rightly been spurned as one being without force. The bank was supposed to take its employee to task only when the alleged misconduct on his part came to its notice. WAPDA had communicated the irregularity in question to the bank, vide letter Exh. R-1/6 in mid of July, 1994, letter having been issued on 16-7-1994 and having been received in the bank on 19-7-1994. A letter of explanation by the bank was addressed to the employee promptly on 24-7- 1994. Although the formal charge-sheet was served afterwards on 7-9-1994. It has partly been observed by the learned lower Court that the charge-sheet strict senso is not the requirement, and it is enough if soon after becoming aware of the alleged at of misconduct on the part of its employee the bank had called for his explanation, and on obtaining his reply had conducted a preliminary enquiry, in the light of which issuance of a show-cause notice or a charge-sheet was considered to be necessary, as it was a question of defalcation of certain amount, and it had to be preliminarily probed into. The employer was expected to have proceeded against the employee, or initiated action against him, only on becoming aware of the alleged embezzlement indulged in by the latter. The same came into the knowledge of the bank on 19-7-1994, and the employee was asked to explain his position on 24-7-1994, and the 'letter of charge' (Exh.P-2) was ultimately issued on 7-9-1994. Technicality apart, it could in no manner be treated as a the-barred charge-sheet; and I would endorse the finding of the learned lower Court in that behalf.
6. The main issue is No.4, Labour Court's finding respecting which has gone against the employee.
Objections of the appellant respecting the so-called defects inherent in the enquiry have, however, rightly been rejected by the Court below, and actually, while making (on 27-3-1995) his own statement as P.W.2, Muhammad Iqbal had conceded that a regular charge---sheet had been served on him, although the same contained untruthful allegations. He had not solicited facility of a 'helper,' as probably he did not stand in need of it. Absence of "assistance" however, did not amount to denial of the facility on the part of the management. In enquiry Bank's witness, Muhammad Aslam had made a statement on oath and the accused official had also been enabled to cross- examine him, although, another witness, Javed Ayaz Khan made a 'plain' statement and also produced before the Enquiry Officer documentary evidence comprised of 23 pages. He was not examined in the manner in which a witness appearing in Court furnishes his testimony, on oath, subject to cross-examination. The ostensible laps, however, would not, in any way, render the enquiry proceedings defective. The bank had examined as many as three witnesses in the count.
All of whom had made their statements on oath and they had also been subjected to cross- examination by the grievance petitioner, before the Labour Court.
7. Document Exh. R-1/2 or R-1/5 is a copy of the scroll dated 19-4-1994, indicating that an amount of Rs.1,156 had been received against Serial No. 1. The total of the amount received on the said date is shown to be Rs.1,475, although it would have been Rs.2,475, had the amount mentioned at Serial No. I been Rs.1,156 and not Rs.156 only. The entries were made by the Cashier and the Manager countersigned the statement. All the witnesses of the bank have admitted that in the total there is some overwriting; but it is maintained that the counter-signatures are affixed just in routine, or by way of 'attestation', and not in the manner of verification of correctness of the entries and the total.
This part of the testimony is, however, ridiculous, on the face of it. It is conceded that explanations of the officers of the bank in that regard had been called, although they had been let of, on being administered warning. It is deposed that it cannot be said with certainty as to who was responsible for the overwriting in question. Who knows then, some one in the staff might have done it, with a view to falsely implicate the cashier.
8. On 16-6-1994 there was a detected deficit of Rs.3 only. It is deposed by Mr, Javed Ayaz Khan, Manager of Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Liaqatpur Branch, District Rahim Yar Khan, as RW-3 that it could well be a clerical mistake. Manifestly, I am of the opinion, it could not be in the nature of misappropriation, as only a fool would endeavour to "steal" just three rupees. It is also testified by RW-3 'that earlier there had never been received any complaint against the cashier. It is also conceded that Muhammad lqbal, as Cashier had made a deposit of Rs.1,000, on receiving it, as he said from one Muhammad Ashraf, and thus the bank did not suffer monetarily, as the deficiency detected was made up, without delay. Muhammad Ashraf had even given a writing in that behalf on 4-10-1994, which is available at page 89 of the file of the lower Court. He states that he had parted with Rs.156 only for payment of the electricity dues of Jamia Masjid Noori, Mahajar Colony, Liaqutpur. Afterwards, when he saw the receipt, it was found to carry an . Amount of Rs.1,156, which amount was later, on 19-7-1994, collected from him by Muhammad lqbal, Cashier, Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Liaquatpur. It thus appears that, actually, while calculating the total, an error had crept in, as the total was shown to be Rs.1,475, instead of Rs.2,475; else, the amount at Serial No. 1 was initially entered as Rs.156 and the digit ' 1' was added afterwards, to make it Rs.1,156.
Muhammad Iqbal, while appearing as an accused in the enquiry, had stated that the person carrying the electricity 'bill had paid to him, in actual practice, Rs.156 only. The bill was in the amount of Rs.1,156, and he entered the said amount in the scroll, but in the same evening he came to know that there had occurred a deficit of Rs.1,000, as the "total" was checked by the Manager, Ch. Shahzad, who signed the scroll assuring that the entries were in order and the total was correct.
The cash was closed, and the scroll was despatched and the deficit in the process could not be detected. When, however, the WAPDA office sent a letter, it was revealed that the amount received, against the electricity bill of the mosque, was Rs.1,000 less than the actual amount. He therefore contacted the management of the mosque, who acknowledged the lapse or the blunder, on their part, and they readily paid to him the amount in question, which he deposited in the bank, on the same day. He had no dishonest intentions and no fraudulent designs. He did not at all intend to misappropriate an amount of Rs.1,000.
9. It seems that it had occurred owing to inadvertence, and it was an at of innocent error, which the cashier committed without any mens rea on his part. He could not possibly appropriate to himself any money, the entire transaction being a matter of record. I would broadly agree with the learned lower Court that employees of all the financial institutions or commercial establishments have to be very meticulous, careful and honest, in their dealings, and if they are found to be guilty, for even a minor lapse, lenient view should not be taken and no excuses should be accepted. It is however, to be borne in mind that in the course of working, mistakes and errors do occur, and what has to be seen is if there is an element of dishonesty or guilty intention involved. To err is human; and if a person commits a mistake inadvertently, he has not to be dealt with rigidly and punished disproportionately, as there is always room for improvement in efficiency and for correction of errors. Benefit of doubt; in situations involving genuine confusion, has to be given and scope for forgiveness must not entirely be excluded. This is a case, in which, I am of the firm view that, the official had not really been guilty of alleged lapse on his part, consciously and purposely. The so- called error which appeared to be in the nature of a gross-- irregularity or manifest defalcation of money, was, it seems, in consequence of some inadvertence or unintentional omission and not palpable negligence or guilty mind, on the part of the employee, who was a cashier, at the relevant the. I would not agree with the learned Labour Court that he could not be absolved of the wrongful at attributed to him.
10. I would set aside the order of dismissal, upheld by the learned lower Court, and would allow the appeal, although with no order as to costs. The poor fellow has been jobless ever since his removal from service, i.e. From 10-11-1994. He will be reinstated in service, and will also be paid half of the service benefits, for the period in question.