2000 PLP 398 (PLC)

I had the occasion of reading with Mr. Masood khan, learned counsel for the appellant; the entire enquiry report, the findings, given by the Enquiry officer, being the crux of the whole enquiry, are apt to be reproduced as under‑‑ "(a) The enquiry started again on 16th December, 1998 produced witnesses including the prosecutor himself. (b) P.W.3 proved the fact of misappropriation by showing the original revenue flight coupons and revenue coupons These were seen physically by the accused and initialed in verification. (c) P.W.4 confirmed the prosecution story of spending the money by the accused and also his so admission alongwith photo copies of four EBTs. The accused admitted of having paid cash to outgoing vendors himself in the presence of P.W.1. When Internal Audit Report was initially received by Resident Manager, P.Ws.1, 4, 5 and 7 have all confirmed that cash payments were always made by accused Liaquat ' Ali. The confession of the accused even after having given him 24 hours to think over it on 25th July, 1993 and its subsequent withdrawal on 12th December of 1993, leads 'to believe the mental state of the accused which only a guilty conscious can dictate. His effort to disprove that he was spending the money for VSMs was a failure as brought out by a reliable and non‑controversial P.W.1 Brig. Z.A. Khan (Retd.). The case against the accused was very thoroughly processed and it was on the basis of his foresightedness that a letter initiated with great pains was withdrawn and PIA vigilance/Finance put on the right path by Brig. Z.A. Khan (Retd.) to find out the names of passengers in whose favour those bogus EBTs were prepared. This issue when confronted by the then Resident Manager to the accused put him on guard and he (accused) changed his story to no comments. (d) Based on the strength of prosecution witnesses, for all sorts of expenditure by Mr. Liaquat Ali, can safely be inferred that was custodian of the total amounts withdrawn otherwise how could he spend the money at the check‑out, time, at the airport terminal and meet the requirement of EBTs. It is also established that Capt. (Retd.) Matiullah SE (Administrative), did visit the airport to miss see off the vendors. Due to efficient handling of VIP/VSMS by Mr. Liaquat Ali, Resident Manager initiated a letter to FFC Head Office for promoting Mr. Liaquat Ali either to the rank of an officer or Supervisor, which eventually led to his promotion as Supervisor Protocol. It is also an established fact that all officers of FFC, Karachi had too much faith and reliance in Mr. Liaquat Ali and blindly entrusted him with huge sums of company money. (e) Although there are anomalies ant sectors of PIA Revenue Record, but it in no way repudiates the amounts which were charged and misappropriated from the FFC account, The fact of EBT for Rs.600 in respect of Maj. Gen. (Retd.) Qazi Abid Hussain, the them Additional M.D. of FFC, having been fraudulently utilised against VSM for an amount of Rs.18,000 is a proven fact of the mala fide, intention of the accused since VIP handling of MD/AMD was invariably personally performed by the then Administrative Assistant Protocol Mr. Liaquat Ali. (f) In light of the above findings the enquiry, therefore, fords Mr. Liaquat Ali guilty of the charge of misappropriation/fraud of Rs.1,94,000 (Rupees one hundred ninety‑four thousand only).

9. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of the charge of misappropriation/fraud of Rs.1,94,000 ,(Rupees one hundred ninety‑four thousands only).

10. The enquiry report was, then submitted to the management and it was decided by the; management to terminate the services of the respondent by letter, dated May 5, 1994 (page 51 of R&P). The matter did not end up there. The respondent gave a grievance notice on 7‑5‑1994 under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969 to the appellant: and then filed a grievance application in the learned Labour Court No.5 at Karachi on 15-6‑1994. The appellant filed its reply statement, submitting therewith the two enquiry files as R/1 and R/2. Whereafter, the respondent filed his affidavit‑in‑.evidence, but produced no witness. The appellant examined Tauqir Afzal, Finance Executive. The respondent and the appellant's representative were both cross‑examined and after hearing the arguments of the learned‑counsel for the parties, the learned Labour Court allowed the said grievance application, as already observed hereinabove, reinstating the respondent with back benefits. 10-A. The learned Presiding Officer framed the following points for determination:‑‑ (1) Whether the show‑cause notice, dated 27‑5‑1993 is time‑barred and in violation of Standing Order 15(,4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 ? (2) Whether the applicant .has committed offence punishable under Standing Order 15(3)(b) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and the enquiry was rightly decided against the applicant? (3) Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement with full back benefits? (4) What should the order be?

11. As regards point No.1 it was held that the show‑cause notice was not time‑barred.

12. The main point, as urged by Mr. Masood Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, which has arisen in this case is whether the charge has been proved against the respondent or not.

13. Learned counsels the appellant submitted that the impugned decision suffers from misstatement of facts, misreading and non‑reading of evidence e.g. it is stated in the decision that the management has denied the fact that the respondent was a workman, whereas the appellant clearly stated in para.2 of the reply statement (page 61 of R&P) that the respondent was a workman, as defined in the Labour Laws. It appears that, perhaps, the words "not denied" as stated in the reply statement of the appellant, was misread as "denied" by the learned Presiding Officer.

14. Referring to para. E, as referred to by the learned Presiding Officer in his decision at page 8, the learned counsel submitted that there is no discrepancy in the excess baggage ticket numbers. The difference in the flight number or the destination is immaterial. As regards para.F of the report, referred to by the. learned Presiding Officer, learned counsel, submitted that the learned Presiding Officer was influenced wrongly by the' difference in figures, as given in the show‑cause notice i.e. Rs.2,17,500 and the figures arrived at after enquiry to be the sum of Rs.1,94,000, is immaterial, which, in fact, is Rs.l,9t,

400. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel at page 105 of R/1 titled as "PIA version" which is, in fact, a comparative statement of the appellant company as well as PIA (see page 105), which is not disputed by Mr. Gohar Iqbal, when question .

15. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the reason of the difference of the amount, as per charge‑sheet (Rs.2,17,500) and the amount as worked out later on, on receipt of the two letters from PIA read with evidence of P.W.3 (Rs.1,93,400) is that an amount of Rs.24,300 has been paid to PIA by way of excess baggage charges in respect of the four gentlemen, who travelled on account of the company, for which no adjustment was submitted by the respondent. I have perused the impugned decision and found that the learned Presiding Officer has vainly tried to raise an anomaly in respect of the amount of Rs.24100 in his decision (page 8) which stands explained by the learned counsel for appellant to my satisfaction in the light of the evidence, referred to by him mainly the PIA's evidence. The learned Presiding Officer has, again vainly tried to show an anomaly in respect of the case of Mr. Montegna Devota. The learned counsel for the appellant, explaining the above, referred to the letter, dated 4th May, 1993 of PIA, wherein it has been explained that the excess baggage ticket, under reference, was reported lost by the Traffic Office to whom it was issued by the PIA. Therefore, as per record, it has been declared lost and has not been issued to any passenger. It appears that the learned Presiding Officer's observation suffers from an infirmity in his judgment by non -reading of evidence viz. the two letters of the PIA. The learned Presiding Officer has again misread the evidence as to the difference of amount of Rs.23,500 for which detailed statement has been given‑in Annexure J at page 105, which is a comparative statement and has already been referred to above. The anomaly, as observed by the learned Presiding Officer, stands fully explained in the light of the evidence, led particularly by the PIA. As regards observation of the learned Presiding Officer that no cash book or receipt of the respondent, on the basis of which, it was alleged that the respondent had received cash of Rs.2,17,500, has been produced. Explaining the non‑production of the cash book/receipt of the respondent, the learned counsel referred to the statement, made by. P.W.1 Matiullah, the Senior Executive (Administration), who deposed that. "This amount was paid to me by cheque (crossed) by Finance Section, Karachi, accordingly, I handed over this cheque alongwith by personal cheque to Mr. Liaquat Ali‑who was then performing the duties of Administrative Assistant (Protocol). I may mention here further that this practice of drawing the cash and handing over was prevalent in the company much before my joining the company. During 1992 I was also performing the duties of Senior Executive Clearing and Forwarding and I had to attend to the hectic schedule of clearance specially during the TA. In view of this Mr. Liaquat Ah, Administrative Assistant (Protocol) had bandied the VSMs from Hotel till their final booking to the aircraft as such all the excess baggage charges including the genuine and bona fide needs of the VSMs were looked after by Mr. Liaquat Ali, Administrative Assistant (Protocol). He had the requisite cash to deal with such expenditures. The excess baggage ticket in question were, thus, obtained by him and later submitted for adjustment of cash to me. As per company procedure details of, other expenditure were put up for adjustment to me and eventually to Finance Section. I hereby produce the photo copies of three excess baggage tickets numbers: (a) 214‑4516‑255381 ‑. Exh.P9. (b) 214‑4514‑836649 ‑ Exh.P10. (c) 214‑4516‑344127 ‑ Exh:Pl

1. Now I submit adjustment vouchers known as, payment order for adjustment made out in the handwriting of Mr. Liaquat. Ali, Administrative Assistant (Protocol) and some details of expenditure handwritten by Mr. Liaquat Ali which makes it evident that the said expenditure was done by him (Exh.P12) ...I may mention here that in the month of December, 1992 when Mr. Donato was to be booked for his outward journey was exclusively handled by Mr. Liaquat Ali, Administrative Assistant Protocol and I had not gone to the airport since Mr. Donato had earlier visited the plant during T.A I have already produced the documents and certain details thereof prepared by Mr. Liaquat Ali in his own hand alongwith the tickets which were submitted by him.." Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to questions Nos.22 and 27 and their answer, which reads as under:‑‑

"(Q.22) It is a company policy to give cash to staff which is entrusted with such a job and asked for settlement of account? (A. 22) The cash is given for various types of jobs to management employees‑who in turn give that money to the staff employee to accomplish the assigned task and later on its settlement. (Q.27) The briefing and payment of excess baggage is done in restricted area where only the ticket holder and Airport Security Pass‑holders are allowed without Airport Entry Pass how could I handle these VSMs? (A.27) It is true that no one can enter the restricted area except the confirmed ticket‑holders and those in possession of Airport Security Pass. 1 ,remember you had requested for taking up a case regarding the issuing of Airport Security Pass. This difficulty as told by you to me was tackled/overcome by a procedure which you told me was being done and adopted that the VSM used to go inside with his belonging and luggage and used to get the items weighed in case some excess baggage was to be paid, the VSM used to come out and contact you giving details of the amount to be paid as excess baggage. The amount which you used to carry was paid by you to the VSM who used to pay the same and obtain the EBT and hand it over to you. Further, you also told me that at times you used to ‑get dummy ticket to get inside the restricted area to overcome this difficulty so that you are personally present to make the payments. I now recollect you having told me that by, entering you were on your way back i.e. while coming out of the airport restricted area, you were about to be caught by the security staff. On one occasion by doing so you were caught and you had to submit your National Identity Card." Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the statement of P.W.1, appearing at page 31, which is reproduced as under:‑‑ "...However, the peculiar inbuilt protocol duties like paying cash for excess baggage. hotel checkout was always done by Mr. Liaquat Ali..." He also referred to the statement of Matiullah wherein it was deposed by him, on oath, during the cross‑examination that he had full confidence in the respondent and used to never obtain receipt of the cheque, handed over to him personally, who used to get it en-cashed through some employee of the Company. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred the statement of Tauqir Afzal (P.W.6), which is reproduced as under:‑‑ " ....The finance hands over the cheque duly crossed to the payee. During TA‑92 finance had made payments of Rs.30,000 (thirty thousand) to Capt. (Retd.) Mutiuliah vide bank vouchers No.123, dated 16th February, 1992. Original duly seen and verified by the accused, vide crossed cheque No.630459 of 16th February, 1992. The second cheque for Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand) was paid to Capt. (Retd.) Mutiullah. AAM vide Bank Voucher No. 156, dated 25th February, 1992 Cheque No.630493, dated 25th February, 1992. (Original seen and verified by the accused) for advance payment on account of chartering of an airport for VSMs if schedule flight is not available. The third Cheque No.630562, dated 18th March, 1992 for a sum of Rs.200,000 (two lacs) was paid to Capt. (Retd.) Mutiullah AAM vide Bank Voucher No.224, dated 18th March, 1992 for the booking of return travel booking of accompanied (Exh.P.W.24) baggage of M/s. Borsing and FBM Italy. Against an advance of Rs.2,80,000 (two lac eighty thousand) Capt. (Retd,) Mutiullah has submitted adjustments in shape of excess baggage tickets alongwith other miscellaneous charges, in the month of April, 1992. "

16. It appears that the inference, drawn by the learned Presiding Officer that the two cheques, referred to at pages 9/ 10 of the decision, do not bear name or the signature of the respondent, is beside the point because it has never been the case of the appellant that the respondent himself used to go and get the cheque, encahased. In fact, it used to be a bearer cheque, representing the amount issued by the Finance Department in favour of P.W.1 to meet the relevant expenditure, which were to be disbursed by the respondent on account of expatriate vendors.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that even if P.W.1 failed to obtain receipt from the respondent, it will not absolve the respondent from the charge of misconduct unless he is able to show that he paid all the amounts as to extra baggage from his own pocket and later on claimed, it from the company, which is not a fact on record at all and has never been the case of the respondent. He further submitted that if the management failed to take any action against P.W.1 for his negligence, if any, it will not absolve the respondent from the charge of misconduct. Reliance is placed by him on a case reported as Muhammad Fahim Ansari v. M/s. ICI Pakistan Ltd., Karachi (1993 PLC 78), wherein it was observed that, "no fault could either be found in conduct of enquiry against employee every page of his statement recorded was bearing signature employee.

18. So far the reasons are concerned, it is a detailed report. It contains full reasoning. On examination of all the reasons, discussed in the report, the conclusion of Enquiry Officer is quite correct. Regarding confessional statement, learned counsel submitted that the finding of guilt is not at all based on the confessional statement of the respondent. In fact, as soon as the confessional statement was made by the respondent the enquiry proceeding was stopped and the matter was referred to the Head Office. It was only that after about five/six months that the enquiry was re opened on the withdrawal of the confessional statement by the respondent, which was clearly an afterthought. Had it been the case of duress, there was no reason for him to wait for six months for withdrawing the same. The inference, drawn by the learned Presiding Officer, is not supported by the facts on record. In this respect, leaned counsel referred to the cross examination of respondent, appearing at page 713', wherein, it has been clearly stated by him on oath that he did not make any complaint about the confessional statement having been made by him under duress to any authority.

19. The observations of the learned Presiding Officer that the Enquiry Officer failed to ask the respondent whether he wanted to examine any defence witness, as such, the applicant was not afforded (opportunity) (missing in the judgment) to take the evidence. Learned counsel submitted that the observation of the learned Presiding Officer seems to be a creation of his own mind, not based on any evidence whatsoever. At no point of time, during the enquiry, the closing of enquiry and the decision by the management, the respondent, made a complaint or expressed his desire to produce any witnesses. Reference was made by Mr. Khan, to the cross‑examination of the respondent before the learned Labour Court, wherein he admitted that, "it is correct that I made no complaint against the Enquiry Officer": According to the learned counsel, if he wanted to examine any witness, it was not asked for, called or produced by him.

20. It is also noticeable that the enquiry report was submitted in January and the respondent's services were terminated after about five months.

21. It seems that the learned Presiding Officer has not taken the trouble of reading the enquiry report and mace his observation, wholly unjustified based on misreading or non‑reading of the evidence. The observations of the learned Presiding Officer that the case against the respondent was doubtful, but he was punished for which no reasoning was given by the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that word "doubtful" used by the learned Presiding officer shows that the Presiding Officer was not clear in his mind, otherwise he would have clearly stated that the charges are not proved against the respondent.

22. Mr. Gohar Iqbal, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the only point which he would like to urge before this Tribunal is whether payment was made by P.W.1 Matiullah to the respondent or not? Reference was made by him to a part of cross‑examination of Tauqir Afzal, who appeared as representative of the appellant before the learned Labour Court, which is reproduced as under:‑‑ "It is correct that the applicant was worker in the respondent's establishment. The applicant was subversive, hardworking and honest up to the date when we came to know about the fraud. It is correct to suggest that we used to maintain the record of each and every payment either paid or received to any one .... It is correct that Capt. Matiullah was the head of the department of the applicant. It is correct that only advices were received by Capt. Matiullah. It is correct that the payment was also received by Matiullah for his department. It is correct that the payment , was made to Matiullah .... We have paid more amount to Capt. Matiullah as mentioned in the show‑cause notice...It is correct that Capt. Matiullah has not given cash to the applicant ....Vol. states that he used ‑to give the cheque. We have called for the cheques issued by the Capt. Matiullah and found that the applicant had received the cheques and drawn cash from the bank."

23. Learned counsel for the respondent, in reply to the long arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for appellant, confined himself to the above admission only and did not advert to any aspect of the matter except the portion from the statement of P.W.6 (Tauqir). It is significant to note that the same witness appeared as P.W.6 before the Enquiry Officer and the respondent, though cross‑examined, at great length each and every witness, but did not put a single question to P.W.6 Tauqir. There seems to be something fishy about it.

24. However, Mr. Masood Khan read out the relevant portion from the evidence of P.W.1, appearing at pages 72‑73 of R/1.

25. Mr. Masood Khan, in reply to the submission, made by the learned counsel for the respondent, invited my attention to the following adjustment vouchers/returns, all in the handwriting of the respondent, relating to the adjustment of expenses, detailed as under:‑‑ (1) Exh.P.W.12 at page 87 of R/1. (2) Exh.P.W.13 at page 83 of R/1 in the sum of Rs.72,000. (3) Exh.P.W.14 at page 93 of R/1 for Rs.46,380. (4) Exh.P.W.15 at page 94 of R/1 for Rs.90,

237. All these adjustments vouchers/entries are in the handwriting of the respondent himself as produced in the evidence before the Enquiry Officer: No question was put by the respondent and none of the entries were disputed by the respondent. He refers to cross‑examination at page 28 of R/2. No question as to the meeting of the questions and answers that Matiullah used to pay him for disbursement on expatriat vandors was asked from the witness. Referring to the statement of P.W.7, page 51, R/2, he refers to an incident of short fall of Rs.21,000 while submitting an account by the respondent. Thereupon, he rang up somebody in the office and the short fall of Rs.21,000 was paid by him. The adjustment of Rs,.21,700 on which the enquiry was based is at page

97. Exh.P.W.4 at page 80 of R/1, a memorandum from Head Office, outlining the tour programme and marked to the respondent. Page 81 of R/1, report relating to payment in support of the payment order containing details of the expenses incurred including Airport taxes, besides others, it is signed by the respondent as well. Page 86 of R/1 report relating to payment in support of payment order in respect of expenses incurred at Airport. Besides others it is also signed by the respondents. Exh.P.W.27 pages 140‑ to 146 of R/2 overtime authorisation in the name of respondent regarding overtime at the airport. Besides others, it is also signed by the respondent on various dates. He also invited my attention to question No. 16 and its answer at page 16 of R/2. Protocol duty had never been the duty of Matiullah. It was the sole function of the respondent. Mr. Matiullah might have gone to receive some very important person from outside. Mr. Khan further submitted that the lengthy cross examination was made by the respondent; as evident from the statement of P.W.1, but to disprove the statement, made by P.W.1 Mr. Matiullah, no evidence was produced by the respondent before the Enquiry Officer or in the Court. He referred to question No. 28, which has been again numbered as question No.28, in fact, it is an answer. After referring to the details as to the excess baggage ticket, he refers to the following statement of P.W.4 page 25 of R/2, which reads as under:

"From the above, it was clear that the auditor's contention was correct. Also on getting the auditor's report I called Mr. Liaquat Ali and in front of Capt. (Retd.) Matiullah SE (Adm.) told him the nature of the audit objection and asked him: (a) Whether he had submitted the EBTs held by us as issued to foreign vendors whose names were shown to him. He confirmed that he had done so? (b) Whether he had‑ paid for these EB tickets from the amount advanced to him by Capt. (Retd.) Matiullah.? He confirmed this also. Mr. Liaquat Ali when confronted with the auditor's objection further stated that he could not guarantee the authenticity of the excess baggage tickets as these were handed over to him by the departing passengers. This was because he could not enter the passenger's departure lounge, and therefore, the procedure adopted was that he went with the departing passenger to the departure area door, the passenger went in had his baggage weighed, came back to the door and he gave the amount required to book the excess baggage, .the vendor then obtained the EBT and gave it to him. Because of this the authenticity of the ticket, could be confirmed by him. After receiving the reply from PIA stating how the tickets referred to them had been utilized, I called Mr. Liaquat Ali again and told him what the PIA had stated, he replied that he could not say anything. Having been convinced of the misappropriation I approached Head Office for disciplinary action against Mr. Liaqat Ali."

26. The observation of the learned Presiding Officer that the case against the respondent was doubtful, but he was punished for which no reasoning was given by the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report, is again a clear case of non‑reading and misreading of evidence and against the pathora of evidence, recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his report, consisting of about 326 pages and consuming about 20 days in recording evidence. Only reasons and findings have occupied 11 (eleven) pages (121‑ 131. of R/2) wherein the evidence of the witnesses has not only been summarised but analysed also. The observation of the learned Presiding Officer, as referred to hereinabove is based on surmises and conjectures. The whole judgment, I regret to say the least, seems to be tainted with the element of dishonesty and of no worth. On examination of all the reasons discussed, the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. I concur with his finding that the ‑ respondent is guilty of committing fraud and misappropriation.

27. Now, I would like to say few words about the principles and standard of appreciation of evidence as well as quantum of proof, required for proving a charge of misconduct, in a domestic enquiry. First of all, let it be made clear that the finding given in an enquiry proceeding, should not be lightly interfered with by a Labour Court unless it is totally wrong, perverse and based on no evidence, and that the principle of natural justice has been violated by not affording an adequate opportunity to the accused for producing his evidence, which is not the case here.

28. Although section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969 contemplates determination of the allegations judiciously with regard to the alleged misconduct, but it may be pointed out that domestic enquiry into misconduct does not contemplate the same standard and principles of appreciation of evidence and quantum of proof, as required in a criminal prosecution as to the finding of guilt. In other words, the standard of appreciation of evidence in a domestic enquiry is different from the standard of assessment of evidence in a criminal case, which requires the proof of guilt beyond any reasonable doubt, If some decided cases, on the point, are needed the same may be found in Barza v. Star Textile Mills Ltd. (1984 PLC 576); Muhammad Nazeer v; Mercantile Industries Ltd., Karachi (1991 PLC 712). Reference may also be made to a case of Shamim Ahmad Kazmi v. P.I.A. 1995 CLC 91 wherein dismissal of a P.I.A. employee, after charging him with misconduct of extracting from a foreigner for extra baggage charge in dollar though receipt showed payment of Pak currency, was held to be unexceptionable when it is found to be free from all conceivable taint or any colourable exercise of authority. It was, thus, held in the said case that, "the scales are different at the domestic enquiry. An establishment commercial or industrial for the preservation of its goodwill and reputation has to provide satisfaction to those who deal with it. An unsavoury or tarnished deal will be its undoing. It cannot simply afford an accusing finger being raised against it or its employees". ‑

29. In the instant case no bias on the part of the Enquiry Officer, has even been suggested. In fact, the Enquiry Officer seems to be quite fair while conducting enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer seems to be a knowledgeable person, as to how to conduct a domestic enquiry. He also seems to be independent and God‑fearing inasmuch as while finding the respondent guilty, he also gave certain remarks against three other officers which appear at the end of his finding (at page 131 of the enquiry report). Or. reading the enquiry report and its proceedings, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant, I intended to ask the management of the appellant company to also initiate enquiry proceedings against P.W.1 Capt. Matiullah, as on my assessment, both appeared to be in hand and gloves with each other: With that intention in mind, I asked the learned counsel for the parties, if Capt. Matiullah Khan was still working in the Company. Both the learned counsel were unanimous in their reply that Capt. Maitiullah has already said goodbye to the company and is no more in their service.

30. For the aforesaid discussion, I have no doubt in my mind that the order of termination of the respondent is in accordance with law.

31. In result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

32. The amount of Rs:2,86,096 (Two lacs eighty‑six thousand ninety-six only), deposited as back benefits by the company in this Tribunal, may be paid, as requested, by a crossed payees account cheque in favour of the appellant company and handed over to Mr. Masood A. Khan, their Advocate, against proper receipt. H.B.T./341‑K/(Lab. Trib.) Appeal allowed.