1988 PLP 939 (PLC)

Musaddiq Hussain respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was employed as Assistant in the Fort Abbas Branch of the Habib Bank Limited, the petitioner herein, in the year 1980. He was charge‑sheeted on number of charges for misconduct on 17‑6‑1980. He submitted written reply to the charge‑sheet denying. the charges. His reply was considered as unsatisfactory and, therefore, a domestic enquiry followed. Pursuant to the result of enquiry a second show‑cause notice was served on the respondent in November, 1980, and ultimately he was dismissed from service vide order dated 15‑2‑1981. The respondent sent a grievance notice to the employer through the Secretary, Soldiers Board, Sahiwal, and thereafter filed a grievance petition before the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur His grievance, petition was dismissed on 22‑12‑1982. He preferred an appeal before the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal. The learned Tribunal accepted the appeal on 22‑10‑1983 and ordered the re‑instatement of the respondent without back benefits.

2. The aforementioned order dated 22‑10‑1983, passed by the learned Tribunal has been called in question through the present constitutional petition.

3. It has been mainly urged in the present writ petition that terms and conditions of service including disciplinary action of employees of nationalize' banks and other financial institutions were governed by the Wage commission mission award which is to be deemed as an award of the National Industrial Relations Commission and, therefore, such an award could only be enforced by the Commission. It was canvassed that the Labour Court and the learned labour Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction in the matter. 'this continua loud favour with a learned Division Bench of this Court which allowed the present writ petition as also many other writ petitions filed by different nationalized hank, challenging the re‑instatement in service of employees of such banks. The maim judgment was recorded in Writ Petition No. 719 of 1982.

4. The respondent as also the other affected workers went in appeals before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. The learned Supreme Court accepted the appeals and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench it has been held that award of the Wage Commission is also enforceable under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). The case, has however, been remanded for deciding other issues involved in the case.

5. The other issues which have been raised on behalf of the petitioner in the present case are:‑‑ (a) that no valid grievance notice has been served by the respondent on the petitioner and, therefore, his grievance petition culminating into his re instatement was not legally competent ; and (b) that even if it be assumed that application (Annexure `H') is a grievance notice, the same was time‑barred.

6. As already observed, grievance notice has been sent by the respondent to 1 the employer on 19‑10‑1981. This grievance notice was, however, forwarded to the employer by the Secretary, District Soldiers Board Sahiwal, as the respondent happened to be an ex‑serviceman. In Syed Muhammad Hussain a Messrs Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd w:d another P L D 1980 S C

80. It has been held that d the word "himself' occurring in section 25‑A (1) of the Ordinance does not involve concept of an agency and, therefore, the grievance notice which was served by Advocate on behalf of his client on the employer was not in information a with the requirement of law. The circumstances of the present case is distinguishable. In this case, none else served the grievance notice on he half t l the respondent on the employer. It was the respondent himself who served the notice, although ‑ the notice was simply forwarded by the Secretary. Solid ; Board Sahiwal. In this view of the matter, the grievance notice sent by the p respondent to the employer is legally in order.

7. The objection regarding limitation is also without any substance. It is noteworthy that dismissal of the respondent was ordered on 15‑2‑1981. He preferred a departmental appeal on 25‑2‑1981, which was dismissed on 31‑8‑1981. Therefore, the grievance notice dated 19‑10‑1981, is within the prescribed period of limitation.

8. It has also been urged on behalf of the petitioner‑bank that the respondent has been found guilty of serious misconduct and, therefore, there was no justification to order his re‑instatement. In this behalf it may be observed that the Inquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of seven charges but after detailed analysis of the records and evidence led before the Inquiry Officer as also before the Labour Court, the Tribunal has concluded that only two charges out of sever charges of misconduct stood established. This finding of fact, which is not the result of any misreading of evidence recorded by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction cannot and should not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. If the competent authority were to come to the conclusion that out of seven charges only two are established, it (competent authority) might have passed some punishment short of dismissal. In Chan Pir Shah v. Congothene Chemical Industries Ltd. etc. 1981 P L C 1984, it has been ruled: "The writ petition is liable to be accepted, on the short ground that two out of three charges, on the basis of which the petitioner has beer dismissed, do not amount to such acts and omissions as can be treated c `misconduct." Precisely for the same consideration, the learned Tribunal has set aside the dismissal of the respondent and ordered his re‑instatement without back benefits, as the Tribunal found that out of seven charges only two were established.

9. In the light of the above discussion, no exception can be taken to the impugned order. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. There shall however, be no order as to costs. S.Q./H‑75/L Petition dismissed