1993 PLP 904 (PLC(CS))

3. The appellant‑Bank resisted the petition of the respondent on different grounds. Firstly, that as the respondent was engaged in union activities and was not performing any manual or clerical duties, therefore, he was not a workman. Secondly, that the respondent could not take shelter of the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance nor he can press the Wage Commission Award. Lastly, that as the domestic enquiry was quite fair, impartial and according to the law in which the respondent was accorded full opportunity to defend himself in which the charge of misconduct was established against him, therefore, he was rightly dismissed from service, hence, he could not maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.

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

5. I have heard Mr. Partab Rai, the learned Advocate for the appellant Bank. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned Advocate for the respondent was not present. He was heard on the last date of hearing. However, the respondent is present in person. At the very outset, I would reproduce the charge‑sheet issued to the respondent the extract whereof is an under: "That on 19‑7‑1982 at about 2‑15 p.m. he entered in the Manager's chamber demanding exchange of fresh notes of, rupee one denomination valuing Rs.15,000 as the Chief Cashier had refused him the exchange on the plea that there was shortage of fresh notes of one rupee and a day before he had been allowed exchange of such notes worth Rs.5,000 and the huge public demands in this regard was yet to be met due to Eid Festival. On refusal of the Manager to grant permission for exchange of above notes he got infuriated and threatened the Manager for dire consequences and used abusive language which is most objectionable and amounts to misconduct. He further manhandled the Manager by throwing paper weights at him resorted to violence, aggression and broke the table glass of the Manager as well as the glasses of the show case and thus created law and order situation and accused damage to the Bank's property. The findings of the Enquiry Officer on this charge is as under: ‑ "Complainant Mr. Abdullah Chohan has fully supported the allegations contained in the charge‑sheet. He has stated the accused demanded new notes and that on his refusal the accused became furious and started abusing and that at the time Mr. Abdul Jabbar was also present, so also was Mr. Khalil Hussain Khan. Further, that whereupon the accused threw two weight papers at him, one after the other breaking show case and table glasses. Mr. Abdullah Chohan was cross‑examined by the accused at length, but nothing could be exacted from him which could shatter the allegation." Besides this, other prosecution witnesses, namely, Muhammad Abdul Jabbar, Nazir Muhammad, Saeed Ahmad and Muhammad Hassan have fully supported the prosecution case and corroborated the evidence of Abdullah Chohan and the respondent could not succeed to make shaky the prosecution evidence. There is a question put by the respondent during the enquiry proceedings which clearly shows an admission on his part of the guilt as mentioned in the charge‑sheet, which is as under: "Is it a fact that immediately after the incident I approached you and expressed my sorrow saying that I could not know what had happened to me and had requested you to get the matter settled. It was argued by the appellant‑Bank that the learned Labour Court had erred in holding that neither the charge‑sheet was issued by any competent authority nor a lawfully appointed Enquiry Officer had conducted the domestic enquiry against the respondent. The contentions of the appellant‑Bank were that the Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Zonal Chief who was competent to appoint the Enquiry officer who had given all possible facilities to the respondent to defeat himself. There is an evidence on record that the Enquiry Officer was appointed with the consent of the Principal Office of the appellant Bank and it did not mean that Mr. Baqar was not competent to appoint the Enquiry Officer. There are admitted positions that vide letter, dated 17‑11‑1982, the Enquiry Officer had intimated the respondent about his appointment as Enquiry Officer against a properly served charge‑sheet. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent has ever raised an objection on the authority of the Enquiry Officer, but on the other hand, it is an admitted position that the Enquiry officer had recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses on 18th and 19th of December, 1982 and they were duly cross‑examined by the respondent and when, the respondent was called upon to lead his defence he requested the Enquiry Officer to supply the copies of the statements on which he was directed by the Enquiry Officer to copy out the statement. It is also evident from the record that the respondent had himself boycotted from the enquiry proceedings and so there was no alternate with the Enquiry Officer, but, to proceed ex parte and came to the conclusion that the charges against the respondent were proved beyond the doubt. The respondent should himself suffer for his acts. It will thus, not be proper for the respondent to state that either the enquiry was not proper or he was not afforded opportunity to defend himself. After careful perusal of the evidence and documents brought on the record of the case, I am of the view that the Enquiry Officer was quite competent and authorised to hold the domestic enquiry against the respondent for the charge‑sheet properly served upon him and that the Enquiry officer was fair, impartial and independent to hold the same in which he was fully afforded opportunity to defend himself and in doing so, he had committed nothing wrong or biased. The learned Labour Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer was very much biased and prejudiced against the respondent, and had a predetermined view as per directions of the management. The respondent would be responsible for his own deeds. If the respondent is an active worker of the union and or was a responsible office‑bearer of the same, does not mean that he was over and above the Law and should plead bias or prejudice against the employer. Authorities relied upon by the respondent in support of his contentions are distinguishable as the facts and circumstances of the present case are quite different form the pleadings of these cases. Considering all the facts, circumstances and the legal aspects of the present case, I am of the view that the dismissal from services of the respondent must prevail and the impugned order be set aside.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would set aside the impugned order and would allow the present appeal. The result would be that the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 would stand dismissed. The amount of back benefits, deposited by the appellant‑Bank before this Tribunal is directed to be returned to the appellant‑Bank forthwith. M.Y.H./1180/Lb. S Appeal allowed.