1991 PLP 263 (PLC)

S.61

Embezzlement

Probe by Labour Court

Parties, held, were duty bound to produce some concrete example of embezzlement to justify further probe by Labour Court. S.M. Kohistani for Applicant. Date of hearing: 16th May, 1990. This is a Revision Application against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dated 22-2-1990, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant under section 61 of the I.R.O., 1969 against the respondents was dismissed.

2. I have heard Mr. S.M. Kohistani, learned Advocate for the applicant and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.

3. In the complaint three allegations were made against the respondents. Firstly, that the subscription of the union was deducted by the management from the salary of the applicant without his consent, secondly, that the respondents were not legally elected office-bearers and thirdly, that the respondents were misusing the funds by way of embezzlement of the amount from the union's account.

4. The learned Labour Court examined the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and also examined the witnesses named by him in the complaint and came to the opinion, that the consent was admittedly given by applicant for the deduction of their dues but his plea, that it was forcibly obtained would at the most if proved would be offence committed by the management and not by the respondents. The question whether the respondents were not legally elected office-bearers, could have been proved by the applicant by producing the order of the Registrar of Trade Unions whereby the names of office-bearers were accepted under Section 8(4) of the I.R.O., 1969. No such order of Registrar was produced and Mr.Kohistani conceded that the respondents were office-bearers.

5. It leaves with only of the third allegation of embezzlement. Apart from vague allegation neither the applicant nor his witnesses have given any details of alleged embezzlement, but only have made general allegation that amount of 8 Lacs was embezzled. No report of Auditor was produced in this respect. The grievance of Mr.Kohistani was that the learned Labour Court should have called the record of the union and should have checked the record to find out embezzlement. In other words Mr.Kohistani wanted that the Labour Court should perform the function of Investigation Officer. It was the duty of the parties to produce some concrete example of embezzlement to justify further probe by the learned Labour Court which the applicant did not produce.

6. In view of the above discussions, I find nothing illegal or incorrect in the order to call for interference by the Tribunal in exercise of its Suo Motu powers of Revision under section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. I, therefore, dismiss the Revision Application. M.Y.H./1701/Lb.S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.