DECISION This appeal filed by one Oam Perkash has been directed against the order of the VIIIth Sind Labour Court, Larkana dismissing the grievance petition of Oatn Perkash for reinstatement and back benefits.
2. The appellant was employed as Officer Grade-II in Habib Bank Limited Ghotki Branch. During his employment in the Bank, while operating his own personal account in the same Bank, he encashed five cheques of the total amount of Rs.1,97,300. This was done fraudulently because his credit balance in the Bank was Rs.54.96 only. When the Zonal Chief visited the Bank for inspection Mr. Oam Perkash misbehaved with him. He then absented himself from the Bank for more than ten days from 7-6-1995 to 29-6-1995. He was served with show-cause notices and thereafter to separate charge-sheets for embezzlement and absence were served on him.
3. Regarding embezzlement the case of Oam Perkash was that he did over draft this amount of Rs.2,00,000 from his own account. He re-imbursed the Bank after 24 hours so the Bank had not suffered any loss. Regarding his absence he stated that the absence was neither wilful nor deliberate.
4. The appellant admits that as Officer Grade-II he was Assistant Manager next to the Manager and he was drawing a pay of Rs.6,000, therefore, obviously the appellant was an officer and not a workman.
5. But even otherwise he admits withdrawing Rs.2,00,000 from the Bank when he had only 54 Rupees balance. According to him this was done temporarily as the overdrawn amount was deposited on the next day. But under the law temporary misappropriation even for an hour is a criminal offence. The question is not one of causing loss to the Bank ultimately.
6. Even officers under suspension are required to attend the office and mark their presence because they get payment of salary even during the period of suspension.
7. The Labour Court found that the misconduct with which he was charged had been sufficiently proved and the grievance petition was without any merit.
8. For the reasons stated above I also confined no ground for interference. Such Bank Officers can under no circumstances be retained in the Banks dealing with deposits from the public.
9. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.