1997 PLP 503 (PLC)

Muhammad Ashraf Khan for the Workers. Date of hearing: 13th August, 1996. These are four appeals, two out of which are filed by Pakistan Petroleum Ltd. against the judgment of the Fifth Sindh Labour Court against respondents Arif Aziz and Muhammad Sheeraz who had both filed grievance petitions against their dismissal in the Labour Court and they were ordered to be reinstated with full back benefits. The remaining two appeals are by respondents Arif Aziz and Muhammad Sheeraz against the order of the Labour Court directing fresh domestic enquiry against them by the management. By this judgment all the four appeals will be disposed of.

2. The facts in brief are that respondents Arif Aziz and Muhammad Sheeraz were working as peons in the office of appellants M/s. Pakistan Petroleum Limited, Karachi. Major J.R. Rahim was the Chairman of the Petroleum Company. He maintained two Bank accounts in A.N.Z. Grindlays Bank, Karachi and he had three Cheque Books in respect of these two accounts. One was Pink Colour Cheque Book which could be operated in all the Branches of Grindlays Bank. He kept these three Cheque Books in his brief case which was not locked. He used to leave the brief case on his table and sometimes he used to take it home. The key of his Chamber remained with peon Arif Aziz. He had also a lady Secretary Mrs. Turab. The other respondent Muhammad Sheeraz worked in the same office. According to evidence peon Arif Aziz had also a duplicate key of the Chamber of the Chairman. On one occasion after office hours Arif Aziz was detected entering the Chamber of the Chairman after office hours. He had also got the key of the room of Mrs. Turab. He was a graduate and could read and write English. The Chairman Major Rahim was a thoughtful person as he had special signature for use in the Bank apart from his ordinary signature so that only a person familiar with his Bank signature on the Cheques would forge the signature for his Bank accounts. Peon Muhammad Sheeraz who worked in the same office had also knowledge of English. In October, 1991 Major Rahim received the Bank Statement in respect of his two accounts and found that large sums of money totalling Rs.1,25,000 had been withdrawn by six Cheques from both his accounts. One was joint account with his wife and the other was a Trust account and he knew that he had not withdrawn that huge sum from the two accounts. He, therefore, asked his Secretary Mrs. Turab to verify in whose favour these Cheques had been issued according to the counterfoil as he always mentioned the purpose of issuing the cheque on the counterfoil. Mrs. Turab informed him that all the six Cheques had been torn from the Cheque Books alongwith the counterfoils and probably they had been stolen and forged before encashment. Major Rahim informed the Grindlays Bank about the theft of his Cheques and the forgery. The Cheques were found to bear the forged signatures which were not of Major Rahim and the Bank, therefore, reimbursed the loss. Major Rahim sent a report to the Executive Officer of his company to make discrete enquiries as the theft and forgery appeared to have been committed by employees of the company. These enquiries revealed that the two respondents Arif Aziz and Muhammad Sheeraz had excess to the Chamber of the Chairman and they could have committed the theft. Specimen signatures of the Chairman used in the Bank were, therefore, sent alongwith the Specimen signatures of Arif Aziz and Muhammad Sheeraz arid one Fazal Illahi by Major Mansoor Ahmed on behalf of the Petroleum Company to the Handwriting Expert Mr. S.H. Siddiqui. Mr. Siddiqui sent his expert opinion that the Cheques in question had been written and signed by Arif Aziz and M. Sheeraz only. That the writings on the Cheques tallied with the specimen signatures and writings of M. Sheeraz and Arif Aziz and‑the figures on the specimen writings and a disputed writings on the Cheques also tallied writings of Arif Aziz and M. Sheeraz. That the disputed writings on the Cheques and the signatures were not of Major J.R. Rahim and all the signatures of J.R. Rahim had been forged by one person while the body writing tallied with the writing of both the accused. That the writings did not tally with the specimen writings of Fazal Illahi.

3. Since this Handwriting Expert was not examined before the Labour Court, the Presiding Officer Mr. Akhtar Farooq ordered reinstatement of these two persons even with the back benefits. The Handwriting Expert was called by this Appellate Court and his evidence was recorded. The expert had qualified as Handwriting Expert by obtaining diploma in Handwriting and Finger Prints and he had also 30 years' practical experience. He deposed on oath that the disputed writings and signatures on the Cheques were actually the writings of Arif Aziz and M. Sheeraz and the resemblance was very clear. He gave his reasons regarding the characteristics of the specimen writings to be the same as on the disputed writings of Arif Aziz and M. Sheeraz while the Cheques were definitely not signed by Major Rahim.

4. Apart from the Expert opinion there is circumstantial evidence that Arif Aziz being a peon of Major Rahim knew the bank signatures of Major Rahim and he had access to the Cheques lying in the open brief case of Major Rahim who was in the habit of leaving this brief case even when he was not in the office and Arif Aziz used to visit the office of Major Rahim even in his absence when he had no business to do so., As regards Muhammad Sheeraz there is evidence that he had also served as regular peon with the Chairman for a long time and he had also been posted with the Chairman sometimes when he exchanged duties with peon Arif Aziz.

5. I have no reason to doubt the Expert opinion of the Handwriting Expert because even by experience of 30 years he can compare two sets of documents and give a correct opinion. What these two persons did with the huge amount of money recovered by them need not be gone into though such matters no longer remains secret but since the Chairman was reimbursed and the office suffered no loss, no effort appears to have been made to report the matter to the Police or to have it thoroughly investigated. The quantum of proof is never the same in criminal case and in a domestic enquiry. The evidence on record may not be sufficient for conviction but it can be regarded to be sufficient for finding a person guilty in a domestic enquiry. The circumstantial evidence is fully corroborated by the Expert opinion evidence and I feel convinced that these two peons have been rightly found guilty and dismissed from service for such heinous offence. It would be an act of injustice if such person are ordered to be reinstated and also paid back benefits for the period they were enjoying themselves with the ill‑gotten money. The judgment of the lower Court is accordingly set aside and the appeals of Pakistan Petroleum Limited are allowed. The set of appeals filed by Arif Aziz and Muhammad Sheeraz against fresh enquiry has become infructuous since the order of the lower Court is set aside so these appeals are also dismissed. The amount of back benefits deposited in this Tribunal may be refunded to M/s. Pakistan Petroleum Limited after thirty days. H.B.T./168/Lb.S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Order accordingly.