1991 PLP 568 (PLC(CS))

M. Sadiq Ansari for Appellants. Manzar Alam for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st December, 1990. This is an appeal against the order dated 4-9-1989, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, VIIth Sindh Labour Court at Sukkur, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be paid the arrears of salary.

2. I have heard Mr. M. Sadiq Ansari, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Manzar Alam, learned Advocate for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.

3. Admittedly facts of the case are that the respondent was employee of the appellants. His all6gation is that on 14-5-1988 while going to deposit the amount to hank he was robbed of the amount. He went to the Police Station to lodge the F.I.R. but the police did not lodge F.I.R., but instead filed F.I.R. against him. He was also charge-sheeted and enquiry was pending against him at the time of filing of petition. He has been subsequently removed from service on 6-2-1989. The criminal case is still pending against him. However, he was allowed to continue to work with the appellants, but his salary was withheld towards the amount of shortage allegedly committed by him. After serving grievance notice upon the appellants, he filed the grievance application, for payment of his salary.

4. Admittedly when the amount of salary was withheld or deducted there was no finding given either by the Enquiry Officer or any Court, that the respondent had committed the act of misappropriation or shortage. Mr. Sadiq Ansari relies upon a policy circular issued by the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited, dated 29-9-1984 vide Circular Order No. A&P.22/84. Under para. 6 of this Circular "in all such cases where the shortage is less that Rs.2,000 and the Divisional Manager decides not to terminate the services of ail employee, the loss sustained by the Corporation should be recovered from the employee in lump sum within fifteen days from the date of finalisation of the case Under para. 7 "no salary is to be paid to an employee against whom the disciplinary Proceedings as undertaken on the grounds mentioned above." This is a policy circular and not a rule issued under any statute. This amounts to punishing a Person before giving him any opportunity to explain the charges levelled against him. This militates against established principles of natural justice and fair play. So long the appellants take work from the respondent, they are bound to pay him these salary under the rules and law. Para.7 is to be read in light of para.6, which clearly shows that after finalisation of the case viz. after he has been given opportunity to explain his case, the amount is to be recovered. There is no dispute over facts of the case, I agree with the opinion of the learned Labour Court, that the salary of the respondent could not be withheld by the appellants, so long he was not found guilty in the enquiry. I find no merit in this appeal and accordingly dismiss the appeal.

5. The amount of the arrears of salary which is deposited to this Tribunal be released to the respondent after due verification. M.Y.H./1804/Lb. S Appeal dismissed: