1998 PLP 30 (PLC)

Gohar Iqbal for Appellant. Faruq A. Ghani for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th December, 1996. This worker's appeal arises from an order of the 1st Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dismissing his grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. for reinstatement and back benefits.

2. The appellant worker was employed in the National Fibres Limited, the respondent-Company, since October, 1982. On 23-6-1990 he is said to have committed a misconduct for which he was charge-sheeted on 16-7-1990 and dismissed from service on 24-10--1990. Against this dismissal, he served the company with grievance notice and filed grievance petition before the Labour Court and the Labour Court in a detailed judgment discussed the evidence and the reasons and then dismissed the petition of the worker for reinstatement and back benefits. Against this order the worker Muhammad Mushtaque has preferred this appeal.

3. The facts about the alleged misconduct are extraordinary. It is said that on 23-6-1990 this worker came to the factory as usual, punched his attendance Card and then instead of going into his department for work he left the factory through another gate. On the next day, that is on 24th June, lie again came into the factory through the Main Gate but this time he punched his card for going out instead of in and again tried to leave the factory. The idea was to show his entry in the factory on 23rd and his exit from the factory on 24th in order to claim working in the factory for 24 hours continuously on over time. He could thus do no work during 24 hours but get wages for all the 24 hours. Luckily the factory Chowkidar caught him on 24th going out after punching his Card for out and asked him why he vas going out when he had just come in. It was then ascertained from the department that this worker had never attended the department during 23rd or 24th for all the 24 hours. But this was not all. This clever worker applied for one day's leave on 2-7-1990, and thereafter, he manipulated the date to how that he had applied for leave from 23rd June for one day and the application was made on 20th June. This was signed by the Manager and he was supposed to have signed it on 20th June bat the application showed over writing and the date was changed from 2-7-1990 to 20-6-1990, and the period as 23rd June, 1990. On the alleged date namely 20-6-1990 the Manager who was supposed to have received this application was in London arid he produced his Passport to prove beyond any doubt that on 20-6-1990 he was not in Pakistan. The clever man was thus caught and he was then charge-sheeted and domestic enquiry was held against him on the charge of fraud, dishonesty etc. He was then dismissed from service.

4. Mr. Gohar Iqbal for the worker has argued that on 23rd June, 1990 the worker was on leave and so he visited the factory and left without doing any work in the department but this carries no sense. If the worker was on leave why he would visit the factory. According to his Card which was lunched in on 23rd June and punched out on 24th June showing that he worked continuously from 23rd to 24th June. This was obviously done to get overtime payment to which he was not entitled and this amounted to fraud and dishonesty tinder Order 15(3)(b).

5. Thus, the appellant tried to be too clever thinking that his act would 'lot be detected. Possibly he had been acting in similar manner on previous occasions also but this time he was caught on the spot and his manipulation for the leave application for the day in question also did not work because of entry in the Passport being more authentic, the over writing and forgery committed by him could not convince anybody. This was not, therefore, a victimization for political reasons or for union activities as alleged by Mr. Gohar Iqbal but this was an example of fraud and dishonesty for which we are getting notorious. Such stray instances coming to light and getting punished cannot be of much help for improvement of our national character but that is the least we can do under the circumstances.

6. There is, therefore, no merit in this appeal. The judgment of the Labour Court is accordingly maintained and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./218/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.