1997 PLP 638 (PLC(CS))

3. Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, Advocate for the Habib Bank Limited has first argued that Nazir Ahmed as Manager of the Bank and holding power of Attorney from the Bank and being an Officer Grade‑II could not be considered by any stretch of imagination to be a worker. The learned counsel has quoted Supreme Court decision in Ganga R. Madhani v. Standard Bank Limited 1985 SCMR 1511 wherein it was observed:‑‑ "A Bank employee appointed as an Accountant‑Power of Attorney executed in favour of such employee by Bank showing that powers conferred on and functions thereby required to be performed by employee could neither be termed as manual nor clerical work and involved exercise of jurisdiction and taking of important decisions‑?such employee also given in an unambiguous words power to manage some of affairs of Bank with number of powers which he could exercise by himself or jointly with other attorneys ‑of Bank which could by no means be said to be manual or clerical in nature? such employee of Bank held, was not a workman within meaning of section 2(i) of Ordinance. "

4. In another matter of National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Court No. V it was observed by the Supreme Court as reported in U.B.L. v. Mubarak Ali 1992 PLC

415. As the Manager of Branch of the Bank who was the sole individual representing employer, supervising and controlling that Branch of the Bank which is an establishment by itself on that account the respondent clearly fell within the definition of an employer and excluded from the definition of a worker or a workman. " It was also observed by Karachi High Court in the case of Muhammad Ali v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal 1985 PLC 403 on the question of a Bank employee being a worker or workman as under:‑‑ "It is not disputed that the petitioner at the time of termination of his services was working as Manager of the P.I.A. Branch or both of the respondent‑Bank and further a power of attorney had been given to him by the Bank as far back as 1965. The said power of attorney entitled the petitioner to perform a number of managerial and administrative acts and generally to act on behalf of the respondent? Bank. Some of these acts were authorised to be done by the petitioner jointly with another attorney, and others by him individually. Looking to the wide powers conferred upon him by the aforesaid power of attorney it is clear that the petitioner was empowered to do important administrative and managerial functions which are wholly outside the ambit of a workman employed to do manual or clerical functions. In our view, the concurrent finding of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal is based on evidence. We see no reason to interfere with such concurrent finding in this Constitutional petition. "

5. It is next contended that the grievance petition was not against Habib Bank as a Corporate body and the legal person but against the Bank Officers but the judgment of the Labour Court implicated Habib Bank itself as a Corporate body to implement the order. That as held in 1980 PLC 568 by Karachi High Court that the order of Labour Court is not binding on the Bank since Bank was not a party. In this case the petition before the Labour Court shows that it has been filed against the President and Senior Vice?-President of Habib Bank but not against Habib Bank as a corporate body while the judgment in effect involves the Bank, for reinstatement and other liabilities and not the Bank Officers personally.

6. It has lastly been argued that although the Presiding Officer of Labour Court came to the conclusion that Manager Nazir Ahmed was guilty of negligence yet he was ordered to be reinstated with full back benefits which are under the law not to be awarded in case of contributory negligence. The learned Advocate has, therefore, concluded that the learned Presiding Officer has .gone out of the way to get the respondent installed in service within a period of one week with full back benefits.

7. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi on behalf of the respondent has argued on technical grounds that though reliance was placed on Power of Attorney it was not brought on record of the Labour Court. However, the record shows that this Power of Attorney was admitted and brought on record during cross‑examination of Nazir Ahmed himself. Since it is the part of the record the point raised is without substance.

8. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi has next argued that the respondent not only worked as a Manager but he also worked as a Head Cashier and even as a clerk because he maintained registers, therefore, by designation he was a worker since he had no power to hire and fire but even if a Manager sweeps his own room he cannot be called a worker because his major work is that of a Manager on behalf of the Bank and he binds a bank in all transactions with the parties. The learned counsel has then cited a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in 1988 SCMR 1664 judgment by Abdul Qadir Shaikh, J. wherein it was observed that a Bank Manager drawing salary less than Rs.800 per month having no power to appoint, dismiss, charge‑sheet or grant leave, whether a workman, has to be decided according to the facts of each case and the Supreme Court declined to interfere. The learned Advocate has then referred to a judgment of Haziqul Khairy, J. in the case of National Bank v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal reported in 1993 PLC 480 that where an employee sometimes worked as a Manager of Branch of the Bank but thereafter he was working as accountant called staff officer‑‑the employee duty were purely of clerical nature maintaining accounts. This case is totally different as the present case is against full time Manager of a Branch.

9. Lastly Mr. Shafiq Qureshi has quoted 1986 PLC 169 a decision of Justice (Retd.) Ali Nawaz Budhani, Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh in the case of Anwarul Haque v. Habib Bank Limited, Karachi that whether a person is a workman or not is to be determined by nature of the duties performed predominantly and not duties performed incidentally. That where the bank employee Grade‑II had no Power of Attorney from the Bank and he was predominantly doing clerical work he was a workman.

10. It is rather unfortunate that in our country even the banks are no; safe from the wave of corruption that has engulfed the employees in all walks of life. A customer should have full confidence in the integrity of Bank officials, before he deposits his cash or valuables in that Bank, and if the public loose faith and have doubts regarding the safety of the Bank transactions, even the Banking system will fail. It is duty of the Courts to scrutinize the cases of Bank Officers thoroughly and not to dismiss the cases on there technical defects in the enquiry which are not consequential and which do not vitiate the entire proceedings. Even in such cases the evidence should be recorded and documents examined to come to an independent conclusion regarding the integrity of the Bank Officers. This is essential for the Banking Institution which must be saved from corrupt practices. We have already reached the stage where billions of rupees are advanced without an adequate security, involving the National Bank in huge losses.

11. A Bank Manager and Officer Grade‑II holding Power of Attorney of the Bank is not a labourer or a worker so as to get the benefit of the labour laws under the I.R.O., 1969. The decision of the Labour Court is accordingly not maintainable and is set aside and the appeal of Habib Bank Limited is allowed. The back benefits deposited before the Tribunal may be refunded to the Appellant Bank after thirty days. H.B.T./154/Lb.S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal allowed.