1984 PLP 1071 (PLC(CS))

S. 25-A-Grievance petition-To be made against employer and not necessarily against establishment-Bank employee - Petition against Senior Vice-President-Objection that petition should have been brought against the Bank being a juristic person-Rule; held, applicable to civil cases and not to labour cases - Objection repelled. Mian Abdul Latif for Appellant. Mian Muhammad Yasin for Respondents Date of hearing: 1st December, 1982. This appeal arises from the decision, dated 16th August, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for claiming wages for the suspen sion period was dismissed. 2. The appellant was kept under suspension from 29th June, 1978 to 11th May, 1980. The allegation against him was that he' did not nay Rs. 2.400 to the account-holder although the cheque had been passed by the Manager. On the intervention of the officials of the branch he paid Rs. 700 but did not pay the balance of Rs. 1,700. The suspension order was withdrawn and the appellant was re-instated, but the wages for the period of suspension were forfeited. He was charge-sheeted and an inquiry was held against him. 3. The learned Presiding Officer has in his decision stated that he had perused the inquiry file, but this is doubtful. There is not an iota of evidence to the effect that the appellant withheld the amount of cheque. The prosecution witnesses rather played the role of defence witnesses. All of them stated that the appellant was a gentleman. If the learned Presiding Officer had looked into the inquiry file, he would have certainly accepted the grievance petition of the appellant. 4. It is incumbent upon the Courts to go into the facts of the case to see if the order challenged in the grievance petition was actually] supported and proved by cogent evidence. Section 25-A (5) is clear on' the point. The learned lower Court erred in holding that the order of the employer forfeiting the unpaid wages of the suspension period was just and proper. The allegations made against the appellant were not established and he was wrongly suspended. 5. On behalf of the respondent cross-objections have been brought First objection is that as Wage Commission Award applies to the bank, no petition under section 25-A lies, According to section 38(d) the decision of Commission is to be deemed to be award and provisions of I.R.O. would apply to it since the wage commission has been constituted under I. R. O. and has to give award under it, the rules contained in award and notified in the official gazette are statutory rules. Infringement of any rule of the award of the wage commission can, therefore, be challenged under section 25-A petition. The rule enunciated in 1982 P L C 1, 1 may say with due respect is not a good law. If the contrary view is taken the application of Standing Order Ordinance will not be excluded and in that position of the case still 25-A petition will be maintainable. 6. The other objection of the respondent is equally untenable. Sub para. (9) of paragraph 258 of the Wage Commission Award does not say that without exhausting the departmental remedy, legal remedy in a Court of law cannot be sought. It makes only a provision of appeal. If the departmental remedy is availed of and the appeal is rejected cause of grievance would arise from the date of communication of the rejection of appeal for the purpose of limitation but it is not necessary to exhaust the said remedy first. 1, therefore, overrule the objection. 7. The objection that petition should have been brought against the National Bank which is a juristic person is also without any forum. This rule applies to purely civil cases but not to labour cases. Section 25-A does not say that the petition should be against the establishment. In labour cases employer is to be sued. 8. Objection with regard to service of grievance notice is frivolous. The learned counsel lost sight of the fact that in the written statement the service of grievance notice was admitted 9. As upshot of the discussion made above I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned order of the learned lower Court, direct the payment of unpaid wages of the period of suspension. A. E. Appeal accepted.