1998 PLP 390 (PLC)

Mian Abdul Rashid for Appellants. Z.A. Qudoosi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd December, 1996. By a judgment, announced on 13-8-1995, the learned Labour Court, Multan, accepted the grievance petition, filed under section 25-A, Industrial, Relations Ordinance, 1969, by Syed Shafqat Hussain Shakir, and ordered his reinstatement in service with full back benefits. The Authorities of the Bank have, preferred the present appeal.

2. Mr. Shakir was employed by the Habib Bank Limited in the year 1974-1975. He was Sub-Manager at Mian Chanoon Branch in 1985, and was transferred to Kukkar Hatta Branch in July. He claims to have detected a fraud of 25 lacs rupees; Mehr Altaf Hussain, the outgoing Manager had committed it, and he came to know afterwards that the Zonal Chief, Multan, Mr. Abdul Karim Khan, had also involvement. The latter officer ordered him not to make a report in that regard to the higher Authorities. The amount is said to have been made good by Mehr Altaf Hussain, but Mr. Abdul Karim Khan got offended with Mr. Shakir, who had not abstained from reporting the matter to the Authorities. In 1986 Mr. Shakir was on medical leave and in his absence the Zonal Chief got removed some important documents from Mr. Shakir's almirah, and on the basis thereof, a complaint was lodged with the F.I.A., and in October, 1986 a charge-sheet was served on Mr. Shakir. The Inquiry Officer, however, found him innocent, but the report was not approved by the officers, who mattered, and a fresh inquiry was ordered. The Second Inquiry Officer held him guilty and Mr. Shakir was dismissed from service on 21-11-1988. This was challenged by him by way of a grievance petition filed before the Labour Court at Multan.

3. At page 3 of the impugned judgment the grounds, on which the order of dismissal from service was assailed, have been stated by Mr. Shakir; and I have applied my mind to the same. I find that the grounds are not just formal, besides being ill-founded. The respondents before the Labour Court refuted the basis, on which Mr. Shakir, petitioner there, had impugned the order of his removal from service. The objections taken up by the respondents in the Labour Court are briefly enumerated at page 4 of the judgment.

4. Both the grievance notice and the grievance petition, according to the appellants here, were barred by the law of limitation. It is, however, to be noted that Mr. Shakir had also filed a departmental appeal (on 24-12-1988), and he had even been giving reminders. The appeal, according to him, was not disposed of; and on 25-1-1989 he approached the Prime Minister of Pakistan, whereupon, on 22-5-1989, he was contacted and asked to appear before a Review Committee on 31-5-1989. The decision taken by the said Committee was, however, not conveyed to him, according to Mr. Shakir. The respondents before the Labour Court alleged that Mr. Shakir had misappropriated an amount of Rs.3,85,000 from the Agricultural Finances through bogus claims. It has nowhere been stated as to what was the fate of the criminal case lodged with the F.I.A. Although the first inquiry report Exh.P-5 covered as many as 21 pages, the inquiry, according to the establishment, had been conducted in a slip-shod and no satisfactory manner. The second Inquiry Officer was described as independent and impartial, although he too belonged to the establishment and was manifestly under pressure of the officers at the apex. In the second inquiry report Exh.R-7,, allegation of Mr. Shakir's unauthorized absence from duty was found to have not been proved. The second enquiry report Exh.R-7 said that all the charges against the official stood proved, although one of the charges, namely, absence from duty, without leave, had actually not been established, and thus a wrong statement was made in the notice Exh.R-8. In the opinion of the learned lower Court, the dismissal order Exh.R-10 was based on the second inquiry report Exh.R-7, which covered only two pages.

5. According to the learned Labour Court, the first Inquiry Officer had probed into the matter thoroughly and had discussed it elaborately in arriving at a finding of innocence as regards the accused official in 21 pages The second inquiry report, Exh.R-7, in the learned Labour Court's view, was drawn up in undue and indecent haste and it smacked of partiality on the part of the inquiry officer. The reasons for the second inquiry, stated in the order Exh.R-6, are not convincing, as the first Inquiry Officer had conducted himself in an exhaustive and cautious manner, which characteristics were missing, when the second Inquiry Officer embarked upon, conducted and concluded the inquiry.

6. Mr. Shakir has examined in the lower Court two officers of the Habib Bank, Mr. Tanvir Ahmad and Sh. Zaid-ul-Hassan, and he has himself appeared as P.W.

3. In rebuttal, only one person, Mr. Khalid Rafiq, has been produced by the Bank. He has confined his testimony to tendering certain documents, as he has never been associated with the process of grant of agricultural loans to claimants, nor had he taken part in the proceedings of inquiry. Learned Court below has found his testimony to be insufficient, as also lacunic. The evidence led by Mr. Shakir in the lower Court has been treated as substantial, and the aspect that in spite of being bank employees, they have deposed in favour of the accused official, has been considered to be very meaningful and important. Mr. Shakir could not possibly prevail upon them- and win them over. As against the formal testimony, furnished by the only witness of the bank, the evidence led by Mr. Shafqat Hussain Shakir as P.W. 3, supported by the two witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2, I would agree with the learned lower Court, inspires confidence and cannot be brushed aside, as being not objective or weighty. 7.? The learned Labour Court has dealt with the preliminary objections raised by the bank people, at pages 8 to 10 of the judgment. A reference has been made to the departmental appeal Exh.P-18, reminders Exhs.P-20 to 25 and the Prime Minister's Secretariat's letter Exh:P-28, in holding, and rightly so, the grievance notice dated 2-5-1990 Exh.P-29 and the grievance petition dated 23-5-1990 not to be time-barred. By no stretch of imagination, could Mr. Shakir be treated as an officer and not a worker, keeping in view the nature of duties he was performing. He was only a Grade-III Officer, if at all he belonged to the Officer class. Reliance has rightly been placed in that behalf on 1988 SCMR 1664 and 1993 PLC 412 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh). A low-grade Bank Manager or Officer, with no powers of hire and fire, of making appointments and even granting leave to subordinates, was considered to be a workman, and not an officer working in any managerial capacity. Provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were found to be applicable. As a dismissed worker could have recourse to the competent Labour Court, the grievance petition filed by Mr. Shakir was held to be maintainable. Having been ousted from service, on no genuine and sound basis, Mr. Shakir was treated to have got a guaranteed and secured right for coming to a Court of law. I do not think that the technical objections taken up by the respondents before the Labour Court had any real worth, and those were, therefore, correctly accorded no importance by the Court below, in coming to the conclusion that the grievance petition could proceed and be dealt with by the Labour Court.

8. Mr. Shafqat Hussain Shakir, appearing in the Labour Court as P.W.3, has deposed that he has been without any means of livelihood, ever since his severance from service. Referring to 1991 SCMR 2087, as also Civil Appeal No.566 of 1989 (Syed Arif Hussain Naqvi versus Personnel and Admn. Manager) and No.742 of 1988 (Muhammad Bashir versus Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others), it is urged by the learned counsel for the appellants before this forum that conduct of the employee having partly been responsible for his removal from service and for loss to the establishment, and he having not entirely been blame-less m the course of his service, past benefits to him could well be refused. In this regard, however, it has to be noted that the extreme action against the official having been initiated or actuated on no plausible and valid premises and not by reason of his direct involvement or conduct, loss having been made good by Mehr Altaf Hussain, Manager of the Bank, who faced the fraud case, and was also dismissed from service, Syed Shafqat Hussain Shakir has to be treated as innocent in the matter. Since, however, the blot on the good name of the Bank was partly attributable to Mr. Shakir as well, I would hold him entitled to half of the salary, for the period he has remained out of service, especially for the reason that he has not served the institution for that period.

9. I would, therefore, in consequence or the above discussion, maintain the findings of the learned lower Court, except of course the one recorded as regards Mr. Shakir's entitlement to the back benefits in entirety Mr. Shakir shall immediately be reinstated in service, if it has not already been done. The parties to the litigation are left to bear their respective costs of the litigation throughout. H.B.T./915/Lb.P????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.