1996 PLP 218 (PLC)
Nawab HABIBUR REHMAN Versus M/s. BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE
| Citation | 1996 PLP 218 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Nawab HABIBUR REHMAN Versus M/s. BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 218 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 218 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 218 (PLC) (Nawab HABIBUR REHMAN Versus M/s. BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majeed, Representative for Appellant.
- A. Hafiz for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th September, 1995.
- 4. It has been argued by Mr. Abdul Majeed, Representative for the appellant, that the show‑cause notice has to be served within thirty days of the commission of the misconduct, that the payment was received on November 13, 1989 but the show‑cause notice was given after one year. The enquiry was, therefore, time‑barred. It has been rightly pointed out by Mr. A. Hafiz, Advocate for the respondents, that it was only on 17‑10‑1990 that papers were brought to the notice of the employer and forgery was suspected, that after confirmation of the forgery show‑cause notice was issued. Running of time is, therefore, to start from the date of discovery of the misconduct and this discovery was made after receiving confirmation from the J.P.M.C. regarding the amounts.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
Employee was dismissed from service after issuing him show-cause notice and holding enquiry against him on allegation of committing forgery
Show-cause notice though was given to employee after one year from commission of alleged forgery, enquiry held against employee could not be termed as time-barred because it was held against him soon after papers with regard to forgery were brought to the notice of employer and forgery was suspected
Running of time, thus was to start from date of discovery of alleged forgery
Commission of forgery having been proved, it was immaterial whether employee had himself committed that forgery or got that done through anyone else
Employee who was found guilty of misconduct by committing forgery and misappropriation, was rightly dismissed from service.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Majeed, Representative for Appellant. A. Hafiz for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th September, 1995. This appeal arises from Order of the Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A for re‑instatement and back benefits was dismissed. .
2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant was employed by the respondent‑Company/Bank as a Driver. ‑These Bank employees were allowed fringe benefits such as re‑imbursement of Medical Charges. The appellant claimed two medical bills of J.P.M.C. One for Rs.700 and the other was for Rs.400 as Consultation Fee for eye‑sight testing at the O.P.D. of J.P.M.C. After the payment was made bills were found to be fraudulent and ks.100 charged. for Ultra sound was altered to Rs.700 and Rs.400 for the eye‑sight testing was also found to be over‑written. Both these bills were, therefore, referred to J.P.M.C. for verification on 24‑11‑1990. The reply was received the very next day on 25‑11‑1990 informing the Bank that the amount of these bills had been forged. The bill for Ultra sound was Rs.100 but it has been altered to Rs.700 regarding the eye‑sight. `4' was the number of lense recommended and it was changed to Rs.400 although nothing has been charged for eye‑testing. Thus, the appellant realised Rs.1,100 for an amount of Rs.100 charged for Ultra‑sound only. The appellant was served with a show‑cause notice, dated 15‑12‑1990, after 20 days.
3. The Enquiry officer was appointed and a domestic enquiry was held. The forgery had been admitted though it was denied by the appellant that he had committed this forgery but the payment was received by the appellant. The second show‑cause notice was served upon the appellant and thereafter he was dismissed from service,
4. It has been argued by Mr. Abdul Majeed, Representative for the appellant, that the show‑cause notice has to be served within thirty days of the commission of the misconduct, that the payment was received on November 13, 1989 but the show‑cause notice was given after one year. The enquiry was, therefore, time‑barred. It has been rightly pointed out by Mr. A. Hafiz, Advocate for the respondents, that it was only on 17‑10‑1990 that papers were brought to the notice of the employer and forgery was suspected, that after confirmation of the forgery show‑cause notice was issued. Running of time is, therefore, to start from the date of discovery of the misconduct and this discovery was made after receiving confirmation from the J.P.M.C. regarding the amounts.
5. It has next been argued by Mr. Abdul Majeed for the appellant that it has not been proved that the appellant Driver had committed the forgery in respect of alteration of the amount but admittedly the forged documents were money received by the appellant. It is immaterial whether he himself committed the forgery or got this done through any one else. ?
6. The appellant is therefore clearly guilty of misconduct he has committed fraud and misappropriated the medical allowance of the Bank where he was serving. There is no substance in this appeal. Order of the Labour Court id therefore maintained and the appeal is dismissed.? H. B. T./2519/Lb.S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.