1988 PLP 831 (PLC(CS))

The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated 29‑2‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad, whereby Faizullah Khan (hereinafter called as the respondent) was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. The respondent has in his appeal claimed back benefits, whereas.State Bank of Pakistan (hereinafter described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of reinstatement. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The allegation for which the respondent was dismissed from service was that he had issued less change in coins at the counter and misappropriated the money. He is alleged to have been found in possession of, while leaving the office, the coins which he had misappropriated by issuing lesser quantity.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that section 1(3)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is attracted to the case and the respondent being employed in the administration of the State, the Industrial Relations Ordinance was not applicable. The argument has no force. The duty of the respondent was not such that he could be said to be performing those functions which no other employee of any other body could perform. His duties were to count cash received and to issue change. Counting of money received and delivering of change can be done by any private person or body and thus does not amount to an act which only the Government or State Bank may be entitled to perform. Other such functions performed by the employees of the State Bank may amount to doing , an act in the administration of State but not the ones which were being performed by the respondent. Defacing and destroying cancelled currency notes is an act which cannot be done by ordinary persons and only the Government has authority to do so. These functions are performed in the State Bank and the persons who are performing these duties may be said to have been employed in the administration of State. If ordinary persons or bodies are allowed to deface or destroy cancelled currency notes, the currency of the State would fail because those employees may remove the currency notes, to be defaced and destroyed and insert ordinary papers in the packets of the currency notes to be destroyed. Learned counsel has cited PLD 1977 Lah. 234 and 1981 S C M R 81 but both the rulings are distinguishable from the facts of the present case.

4. The respondent was not afforded any opportunity to produce defence. It was not inquired from him whether he wanted to lead any defence evidence, nor he made statement that he did not want to produce any witness. The other defect is that his statement was recorded in question‑answer form meaning thereby that he was not afforded opportunity to himself explain the material which had been brought on record against him by the prosecution evidence. Since he was put specific questions, he had to give answers only to those questions and was not free to make any statement to explain his conduct. But since this was a case of misappropriation and fraud, the learned lower Court should have permitted fresh inquiry. If the B respondent is in reality a corrupt person, he cannot be thrust upon the Bank of the State to save the State exchequer and the State currency.

5. In view of the heinousness of the offence, I partly accept the' appeal of the appellant and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, permit the appellant to hold fresh inquiry against the respondent from the stage of recording the statement of the respondent and to give him opportunity of defence. The question of entitlement to back benefits would depend upon the result of the inquiry and subject to the respondent's asserting that he during the period of dismissal remained jobless. The appeal of the respondent stands disposed of accordingly. A.E./528/Lb.P Appeal partly accepted.