1988 PLP 225 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 19th August, 1987. DECISION There are two cross‑appeals, one appeal bearing No.SUK‑182 of 1985 is filed by Messrs National Bank of Pakistan against the order of re‑instatement of the workman, namely, Ramesh Lai with 50% back benefits, while, the other appeal bearing No.SUK‑198 of 1985 is filed by the workman, Ramesh Lai against the award' of fifty per cent back benefits. These both appeals are against a common impugned order, dated 29‑5‑1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.VII, Sukkur, on an application filed by the workman under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the workman claimed to be permanent employee of the National Bank of Pakistan and was subsequently promoted as Officer Grade III with effect from 1‑7‑1977. According to his claim, on 17‑6‑1981, he was served with a charge‑sheet containing baseless allegations relating to some alleged fraud to have been committed in the year 1976, when he was working as Supervisor and that though he had denied the charges yet an enquiry was conducted against him resulting in his dismissal from service on 28‑11‑1983. The workman claimed that after complying with the prescribed procedure, he submitted his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court under section 25‑A, I. R.O. 1969.

3. The National Bank of Pakistan has resisted the grievance petition Rules Ramesh Lai mainly on the ground that it had its own Statutory of Service applicable upon the employments of all employees, therefore, the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, were not applicable and that he was rightly dismissed from service after adopting proper procedure, thus, he was not entitled to maintain his petition which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties led their respective evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present two cross‑appeals.

5. I have heard Mr. Hidayatullah Abbasi, the learned Advocate for the National Bank of Pakistan and Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Advocate on behalf of the workman, Ramesh Lal and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. As regards Appeal No.SUK‑182 of 1985 filed by the National Bank of Pakistan, I would observe here that it is not legally maintainable as the memo of appeal has been signed by the Advocate of the Bank and not by the employer. It is a settled principle of Law as well as a number of authorities that the aggrieved person should sign himself the petition or the memo of appeal and no one else. In view of this admitted position, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

6. As regards Appeal No.SUK‑198 of 1985, filed by the workman, Ramesh W, it is also liable to be dismissed in view of the factual and legal position of the case and the evidence brought on record. The impugned order is well‑reasoned and there is nothing wrong with it. Neither, Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Advocate for Ramesh Lal nor Mr. Hidayatullah Abbasi, the learned Advocate on behalf of National Bank of Pakistan have anything new in support of their respective arguments in the present appeal, what they had submitted before the learned Labour Court. Thus, the impugned order is not required to be set aside.

7. For the reasons stated by me above, I would maintain the impugned order and would dismiss both these cross‑appeals. A.E. /1044/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.