1981 PLP 492 (PLC)

Muhammad Hussain v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. P L D 1980 SC80rel. Muhammad Sadiq for Appellants. Hasan Hameedi for Respondents. Date of hearing : 4th January, 1981. The services, of the two respondents, who were respectively working as cashier and as an officer in the Kandhkot Branch of the appellant bank, were terminated with effect from 29th August, 1979, on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice. It may be pointed out that. prior to the termination of services of 'the two respondents, charge‑sheets were served upon them containing serious allegations of defalcations of the bank's funds and other acts of misconduct. According to the appellant bank a proper domestic enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Banks and Financial Institutions (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, was held in which the respondents . were given full opportunity to defend themselves. However, the holding of such an enquiry has been disputed by the two respondents who claim that in any case the enquiry was neither fair nor proper. Both the respondents challenged the orders of termination of their service before the learned Labour Court which has come to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry held against the two respondents was not in accordance with the . Banks & Financial Institu tions (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 and has, accordingly, directed the appellant bank to reinstate both the respondents with full back benefits. Against the said decision the appellant‑Bank has come up in appeal to this Tribunal. Mr. Mohammad Sadiq, the learned counsel for the appellant Bank submitted that the grievance petitions of the respondents were not maintainable as the grievance notices were given to the Bank not by the respondents nor on their behalf through the shop stewards or C. B. A. but by their Advocate. The learned counsel referred me to the two grievance notices which appear as Exh. 1/C in the records of the learned Labour Court. An essential requirement and pre‑condition for the filing of a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R. O. is the service by the aggrieved worker upon the employer of a grievance notice. Such grievance notice must be given to the employer by the aggrieved worker himself or through his shop steward or C.B.A. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohmmad Hussain v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. (PLD1980SC80), that the scheme of the legislation appears to be to exclude the concept of agency in the matter of giving of a grievance notice and hence giving of such notice through an Advocate will fail to comply with the requirement of Law. Since the necessary pre‑condition for the filing of a grievance petition has not been fulfilled by either of the two respondents, their grievance petitions were clearly not maintainable and on that account alone they should have been dismissed.

3. Mr. Mohammad Sadiq also sought to argue that respondent Abdul Razzaq is not a worker, being an officer of the Bank, that not withstanding the holding of a domestic enquiry against him the services of respondent Abdul Razzaq were terminated on giving him one month's wages in lieu of notice in accordance with rule 12 of the Service Rules and Regulations of the appellant Bank, and that even otherwise the pro visions of the Banks & Financial Institutions (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, were followed by the Enquiry Officers and the Bank. It is, however, needless to go into these questions since the grievance petitions of the two respondents were not maintainable by reason of their failure to give grievance notices to the appellant‑Bank in accordance with law.

4. For the reasons discussed by me above. I would set aside the impugned decision of the learned Labour‑Court and allow both the appeals. Appeals allowed.