1984 PLP 455 (PLC)

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑

Ss. 22‑A (8) & (9), 22‑B (3) (a), 25‑A, 38‑E & 38‑D‑Jurisdic tion of Labour Court and National Industrial Relations Commis sion‑Jurisdiction of N. I. R. C. only in criminal matters under S. 38‑E and in matter relating to unfair labour practices‑Jurisdic tion of Labour Court in individual grievance of workers not exclud ed‑Bank employee case‑Award of Wage Commission under S. 38‑D governed by provisions of Ordinance‑Grievance petition based on Award of Wage Commission maintainable before Labour Court. Mian Muhammad Yasin for Appellants. Malik Muhammad Asghar for Respondent. Date of hearing : 31st January, 1984. The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 12th June, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. The respondent was an Assistant. Two charge‑sheets were deli vered to him (Exhs. P‑2 and P‑4), Exh. P‑2 as dated 5th February, 1979 and Exh. P‑4 dated 28th September, 1981. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the respondent from the charges detailed in charge‑sheet Exh. P‑2 and con victed him in charges contained in the charge‑sheet Exh. P‑4 to the extent that he had committed criminal breach of trust reposed in him. But the competent authority convicted and punished the respondent in relation to the charges contained in both the charge‑sheets. If he did not agree with the Enquiry Officer to his finding regarding the charges mentioned in charge‑sheet Exh. P‑2, he may have appointed another Enquiry Officer and sent the case to him but he could not pass an order against the report of , the Enquiry Officer. As a matter of fact none of the allegations contained in both the charge‑sheets was established. No witness was examined and only statements of the persons under enquiry were recorded. Even no opportunity of cross‑examination was given. If some entries had been made by the respondent in the record with criminal intention, the entries should have been proved to be in the handwriting of the respondent. No evidence worth the name is on the enquiry file. The respondent denied all the allegations. Delivery of pledged goods was also denied but by no evidence it was proved.

3. It has been argued that Labour Courts have no jurisdiction and only the N. I. R. C. has jurisdiction. I have in many cases held that only the Labour Courts have jurisdiction. The powers of N. I. R. C. are given in sections 22‑A and 22‑B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In the said sections nowhere it is proved that such cases can bed heard and decided by the N. I. R. C. Only in the matters relating to unfair labour practices the N. I. R. C. has vide sections 22‑A (8) (9) and 22‑B (3) (a) jurisdiction. Section 38‑E gives only criminal powers, It is further argued that the Wage Commission Award is an award of the Commission according to section 38‑D, so on the basis of such an award, no remedy can be sought under section 25‑A. This is also wrong. Section 38‑D says that provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 will apply to such an award. So, only in Labour Courts petitions under section 25‑A on the basis of award of the Wage Commission can be instituted.

4. As a result, the appeal being without any force, is dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.