1989 PLP 737 (PLC)

Abdul Majeed for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th March, 1989. This is an appeal against the order, dated 27‑11‑1986, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No.VI at Hyderabad whereby he allowed the grievance petition of the respondent and ordered his reinstatement along with back benefits.

2. The respondent was employee of the appellants bank and after domestic enquiry he was dismissed from service on 11‑1‑1986 on the charges of misappropriation. His appeal was rejected and after service of grievance notice he filed the grievance petition. The appellants resisted the grievance petition on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction as the appellants had their own statutory rules and Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable. It was further submitted that enquiry was held in accordance with law and the respondent was legally dismissed from service.

3. I have heard Mr.Muhammad Ibrahim Soomro Advocate for the appellants and MrAbdul Majeed, representative for the respondent.

4. Mr.Muhammad Ibrahim Soomro has relied upon an un‑reported decision of the Division Bench of Sind High Court at Karachi in Constitution Petition No.B‑31 of 1984 National Bank of Pakistan v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and others decided on 21‑1‑1989. In the said decision their Lordships held 'hat National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1980 were not statutory therefore could not supersede the statutory rules framed by the National Bank in 1973, which still hold the field and as such the provision of West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, A 1968 would not be applicable to the workmen of the National Bank of Pakistan by virtue of First Proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of the West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which reads as under:‑ "Provided that nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to industrial and commercial establishments carried on by or under the authority of the Federal or any Provincial Government, where statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline are applicable to the workmen employed therein:" This decision of the Hon'ble High Court sets at rest the question as to whether Standing Orders Ordinance is applicable to the employees of the National Bank of Pakistan. However, their Lordships have further held that the Labour Courts have got jurisdiction to entertain grievance petition of the workman employed by the National Bank of Pakistan under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969, to enforce their rights under the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1973. Their Lordships have also held that the enquiry proceedings initiated under Staff Rules of 1980 were without lawful authority. As from the very inception and even charge in that case was framed under the Staff Rules of 1980, the subsequent proceedings were also held to be without lawful authority. In the instant case also I find that the charge has been framed against the respondent under Rule 37 of the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Rules, 1980, therefore, the subsequent proceedings and order of dismissal based on this charge‑sheet would be without lawful authority as held by their Lordships in the abovementioned case.

5. It is submitted by Mr.Muhammad Ibrahim Soomro that the respondent has been convicted by the learned Presiding 06cer, Special Court (Offences in Banks), Karachi for the misappropriations, for which charges the appellant has been dismissed from service. He submitted that such a convicted person is not entitled to be reinstated. He has relied upon the provisions of 1973 Rules under which a person who was convicted for offence involving moral turpitude could be removed from service on such charge without even holding formal enquiry. He also relied upon certain case‑law in which superior Courts have declined to order reinstatement of such convicted persons. In the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the accused persons were charge‑sheeted for the offences after conviction on the basis of such conviction and were removed after conviction. These cases are obviously distinguishable from the instant case in which appellant has not been charged for having been convicted on the charges involving moral turpitude. No doubt he has been convicted on the same charges later on. He was, however, not charge‑sheeted under the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1973 nor was he removed from service under the said Staff Rules. He was charge‑sheeted under the Staff Rules of 1980 and also removed from service under the said Staff Rules of 1980. The plea of the appellants in the Labour Court was that 1980 Rules were statutory rules. The decision of Hon'ble High Court that 1980 Staff Rules are not statutory rules, that any proceeding initiated on the charge‑sheet under the Staff Rules 1980 and subsequent proceedings thereafter were without lawful authority and statutory srules of 1973 still hold the field, is binding on this Tribunal. In view of the above legal position, the charge‑sheet and subsequent proceedings against the respondent being without lawful authority his order of dismissal cannot be sustained. Therefore, the order of the learned Labour Court setting aside such an order has to be maintained. However, it will not preclude the appellants, if they so desire to proceed against the respondent under the Rules of 1973 in accordance with law.

6. With these observations the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. A.E./1423/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.