PARAS TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus Malik GHULAM MUHAMMAD
This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 30‑9‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur whereby the respondent has been directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.
2. The allegations made against the respondent as contained in the charge‑sheet, copy of which is Ex.P‑1 were that appointment letters of M/s. Riaz Ahmed, Allah Bakhsh & Shabbir Hussain were bearing forged signatures of the Labour Welfare Officer therefore, the respondent fraudulently signed appointment letters of the said persons. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon Ex.R‑5 which is reply to the charge‑sheet. He has not pointed out any evidence by which the allegations may have been established against the respondent. In reply R‑5 letter number is given which is of the charge‑sheet. In R‑5 the respondent said only this much that he admitted his mistakes and wanted to seek pardon. But what he did is not mentioned in R‑5. It has been argued that one of the allegations made against the respondent was that he had forged the signatures of the Labour Welfare Officer this is wrong. In the charge‑sheet it is stated that appointment orders of M/s Riaz Ahmad, Allah Bakhsh & Shabbir Hussain were bearing forged signatures of the Labour Welfare Officer. So the allegation is not that the respondent had forged the signatures. There is no allegation that the respondent had no authority to issue trial passes, token numbers and appointment letters. Rather the charge‑sheet shows that it was within the duties of the respondent to issue the said documents. The relevant portion of charge‑sheet reads as under :‑
"Issuing of trial passes, Token Numbers and appointment letters are included in your assigned duties and you have fraudulently signed the aforesaid letters.
The words 'are included in your assigned duties' clearly show that it was one of the duties of the respondent to issue the above‑mentioned documents. The charge‑sheet is self‑contradictory also. In the opening sentence of the charge‑sheet it is stated that the appointment letters of M/s Riaz Ahmad, Allah Bakhsh & Shabbir Hussain were being forged signatures of the Labour Welfare Officer but the second para of the charge‑sheet discloses that it was the duty of the respondent to issue token numbers, trial passes and appointment letters with his own signatures. When the very charge‑sheet was ambiguous and self‑contradictory, whatever the respondent said in reply to this charge‑sheet did not amount to any confession. In the second show‑cause notice the respondent denied the allegations and this further shows that whatever the respondent said in reply R‑5 was, due to the ambiguity and self‑contradiction contained in the charge‑sheet. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show A that the allegations made against the respondent were established during the enquiry by some cogent evidence. He has also not been able to say that the learned Labour Court has wrongly observed in para No.4 of the judgment that the respondent was not provided opportunity to produce defence evidence. On account of what has been said above the order of dismissal is not sustainable and was rightly set aside by the learned lower court. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. So far as the back benefits are concerned the respondent had urged in his statement that from the date of dismissal from service he was jobless and this part of his statement was not rebutted by any cogent evidence.
4. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed.
A.E. /468/Lb.P Appeal dismissed