2013 PLP 270 (PLC)

HAFIZ ABDUR REHMAN (CHAIRMAN).

The appellant-department has filed the instant appeal before this Court against judgment dated 24-3-2010 passed by Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur whereby he accepted the grievance petition of the respondent and struck down the notice of recovery dated 30-9-2008 issued to respondent.

2. The brief facts of the instant case are that respondent/petitioner is an employee of appellant-department who was posted as purchase Inspector Godown Bahawalpur. One Mumtaz Hussain lodged complaint that he supplied black grams to respondent/petitioner being Purchase Inspector. Respondent/petitioner made excess payment of 20 bags of black grams. Upon this complaint regular enquiry was conducted by a high level inquiry Board constituted by the appellant-department. The respondent/petitioner participated in the inquiry. The inquiry board found the respondent/petitioner guilty in the inquiry to make excess payment of 20 bags of black gram from the PASSCO account. So, recovery of Rs.75,200 was imposed upon the respondent/petitioner. The appellant-department issued recovery notice dated 5-8-2008 to respondent/petitioner which the respondent/petitioner duly received. After serving grievance notice upon the appellant-department, respondent/petitioner filed grievance petition by assailing imposition of recovery of Rs.75200. The appellant department contested the grievance petition and filed written statement by raising some preliminary objections i.e. the grievance petition is not competent and ground taken in the grievance petition is frivolous and flimsy. The respondent/petitioner has not come in the court with clean hands. On fact, all the contents of the grievance petition were denied. Hence grievance petition be dismissed.

3. Thereafter, Learned Presiding Officer called evidence from the parties. Respondent/petitioner appeared in the Court as PW-1 and tendered documents i.e. copy of recovery notice dated 30-9-2008 Exh.P.1, copy of recovery notice dated 5-8-2008 Exh.P.2, copy of reply of recovery notice dated 5-8-2008 Exh.P.3, copy of grievance notice Exh.P.4, copies of receipts Exh.P5 and Exh.P.6, copy of pass book Exh.P.7, copy of billity receipt Exh.P.8, copy return receipts Exh.P.9 to Exh.P.18, copy of gate registry Exh.P.19 to Exh.P.24, copy of goods receipt Exh.P.25, copy of inspection report Exh.P.26, copy of purchase receipt Exh.P.27, copy of receipt Mumtaz Hussain Exh.P.28 and copy of receiving receipt Exh.P.29. On the other hand Muhammad Muneer Project Manager Lodhran appeared in witness box and produced documents i.e. copy of inquiry report Exh.R.1, copy of recovery notice Exh.R.2, copy of reply notice Exh.R.3, copy of notice after reply Exh.R.4 and copy of order dated 8-4-2009 Exh.R.5.

4. Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur accepted the grievance petition of the respondent/petitioner and set aside the notice of recovery dated 30-9-2008. Hence, instant appeal filed before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for appellant contends that impugned judgment dated 24-3-2010 is against law and facts of the case which is not maintainable in the eye of law. Learned Presiding Officer did not apply judicious mind to the facts of the case and impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures. Learned counsel for appellant further submitted that impugned judgment is based on misreading and non-reading of evidence.

6. Learned counsel for respondent/petitioner fully supported the impugned judgment dated 24-3-2010. Learned counsel submitted that during inquiry, the allegation levelled against respondent/petitioner was not proved. Learned counsel submitted that respondent/petitioner made the payment according to weight which was made through PASSCO scale. Learned counsel submitted that disputed amount Rs.75200 was recovered from the monthly salary of the respondent/petitioner in installments which is illegal.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the learned trial court minutely.

8. The perusal of the record reveals that Muhammad Munir Project Manager Lodhran admitted in cross-examination that allegation levelled against respondent/petitioner was not proved in enquiry and respondent/ petitioner made payment according to weight which was made on the scale of PASSCO. The allegation levelled in recovery notice dated 5-8-2008 Exh.P.2 that respondent/petitioner made excess payment of 20 bags black gram. It is not mentioned in the charge-sheet that grievance petitioner made excess payment of 20 bags. The respondent/petitioner in the written statement denied that he made excess payment of 20 bags black gram from the account of PASSCO. The statement of the respondent/petitioner is corroborated even by the statement of Muhammad Munir Project Manager Lodhran which is reproduced below:

Mumtaz Hussain complainant against respondent/petitioner did not appear in the court to substantiate contents of complaint which has shaken the veracity of complaint. Complainant was the best witness. From the contents of Exh.R-2, it is observed that in the findings of Board of Inquiry Mumtaz Hussain complainant failed to produce any documentary corroboration to prove charges. In spite of that impugned recovery notice of Rs.75,200 was issued to respondent/petitioner. The allegation that respondent/petitioner made payment of 176 bags black grams as alleged by Mumtaz Hussain, was not proved, Mumtaz Hussain was the supplier of black grams and he tried to blackmail the Godown Inspector-Muhammad Ilyas.

9. In view of the above discussion, the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur rightly passed the judgment dated 24-3-2010 in which there is no flaw or infirmity which is hereby upheld. The instant appeal has no legal force and same is dismissed as no order to costs. HBT/2/PLT Appeal dismissed.