1988 PLP 713 (PLC(CS))

This is an appeal directed against‑the decision dated 18‑2‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad, whereby the respondent was directed ‑to be reinstated in service without back benefits.

2. The allegation for which the respondent was dismissed from service was that in the scroll the electricity charges were mentioned less by Rs.236.99 and thus he had misappropriated the said amount. It is also mentioned in the charge‑sheet that in the bill for electricity charges the amount given included the figure 236.99. Previously the appeal was accepted and following the ruling of the High Court reported in 1985 P L C 1053 it was held that the respondent had ceased to remain covered by the definition of workman on his removal from service. It was also directed that if the Supreme Court, where the point was subjudice in certain appeals, held that the persons removed from service are covered by the definition of workman, the appellant would be entitled to get his appeal decided on merits. Since now the Supreme Court has held that the Labour Courts have jurisdiction and setting aside the order of the High Court, wherein it had been held that the persons removed from service cease to remain workmen, remanded the case, therefore, the appeal is being decided on merits.

3. The appellant failed to establish by producing the electricity bill that the respondent had in reality entered the amount in the scroll less by Rs.236.99. The complainant also was not examined. Rather the complainant had after sending complaint Ex.P‑5, made three applications which are Exs.P‑3, P‑14 and P‑10 that he had no grievance against the respondent and that his servant had due to misunderstanding appraised him that the amount of Rs.236.99 had been given in the scroll less and that the said amount had been misappropriated by the respondent. By the production of electricity bill and the scroll it could be proved whether in reality in the scroll the amount was given by the respondent less than the amount given in the bill. There is also no evidence that the amount which was entered in the books was less by Rs.236.99. This could be proved by producing the relevant register. The inquiry proceedings show that the statement of only one witness namely Rana Nazir Muhammad, Manager, was recorded who gave statement without producing the scroll, electricity bill and other documents of the bank. Needless to say that where documentary evidence is available, oral evidence cannot be accepted. In his statement the respondent did not admit the guilt) but said that the bill was for Rs.2,425.75 and by mistake in the receipt of the bill he entered the amount as Rs.Z,662.74, with the result that in the following month a fine of Rs.236.99, was imposed by Wapda upon the consumer. It is thus clear that if the bill had been produced, it could show whether it was initially for Rs.2,425.75 or for Rs.2,662.74. The respondent, therefore, was rightly reinstated in service by the learned Lower Court.

4. As upshot of the observations made above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A. E. /518/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.