1990 PLP 449 (PLC)

M. Sadiq Khan for Appellants. S. Tauqir Hassan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd May, 1989. These two appeals are directed against the order of learned Sindh Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur, dated 13-10-1988, whereby the learned Presiding Officer allowed the grievance petition of the respondent Ghulam Rasool Bhatti and ordered reinstatement but allowed him 50% back benefits. The appellant U.B.L. has filed the appeal No. SUK-337 of 1988 against the order of reinstatement, whereas the respondent, Ghulam Rasool Bhatti has filed Appeal No. SUK-344 of 1988 against the curtailment of back benefits to 50%. This order will dispose of both the appeals.

2. Ghulam Rasool Bhatti, who for the purpose of this order will be referred as respondent, was a Cashier with the United Bank Limited, who for the purpose of this order will be referred as the appellants, at the Nawabshah Branch of the bank when on 3-3-1988, on audit of the bank, it was found that there was a shortage of Rs.5,

000. The respondent is alleged to have admitted his guilt in writing before the Assistant Vice-President, Mr. Zaidi on 12-3-1985. He was charge-sheeted on 17-3-1985 and after domestic enquiry wherein he was found guilty he was dismissed from service on 30-4-1985. Being aggrieved with this order of dismissal, after serving grievance notice. upon the appellants, the respondent riled the grievance petition which was resisted by the appellants but was disposed of vide impugned order.

3. I have heard Mr. Sadiq Khan, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. S. Tauqir Hassan, the learned counsel for the respondent in both the appeals and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.

4. Admittedly the respondent was not given any opportunity of cross- examining the witnesses before the Enquiry Officer and as such the opinion of the learned Labour Court that the enquiry was not fair cannot be disputed. However, Mr. Sadiq Khan has contended that in view of the admission in writing of the guilt by the respondent himself, the order of dismissal cannot be challenged or set aside even if the enquiry is held to be unfair. In this behalf, he has placed reliance on 1980 P L C 47, 1987 S C M R 1823 and P L D 1984 S C

170. In all these cases, the accused person had not retracted from his admission which he had made in writing either before his employer or before the Enquiry Officer. However, the instant case is distinguishable from all the reported cases. In this case the respondent had not only retracted from his alleged admission in writing but he had further alleged that he had given an admission in writing under coercion and pressure of the police and he was threatened that unless he gave admission in writing, he would be handed over to the police. Even before the Enquiry Officer he made this allegation. Another factor which also requires to be noted while considering this allegation of respondent is that the detection of shortage was on 3-3-1985, whereas the alleged admission has been made on 12-3-1985 viz., after 9 days. This delay of 9 days in making admission does not indicate that it was voluntary or as it was an automatic response of the respondent on this detection but it gives weight to the allegation that certain pressure was applied on him to give this admission. Under circumstances, such kind of admission would not validate the enquiry which is against the principle of natural justice. I, therefore, see no merit in the appeal filed by the appellants U.B.L. and dismiss it. With regard to the appeal of the respondent, the learned counsel for the respondent does not press this appeal in view of the dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellants bank. Therefore, this appeal is also dismissed. A.E./1449/Lb. S Appeals dismissed.