1989 PLC 621 (PLP)

(3) During your posting at Kassowal branch you took no notice of Mr. Faiz Muhammad, Branch Manager and Mr. Muhammad Boota Abbas, who were busy in embezzling the amounts. As a result the under‑noted amounts were embezzled with your connivance: (i) Amounts overdrawn from various deposit accounts (Annex. A). F~, ,i.,0.; . Rs.46,906.47 (ii) Embezzlement reported by customers (Annex. B) Rs.148,976.33 (iii) Embezzlement reported by societies in recovery of their loan account (Annex. C) Rs.100,150.00 ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ Rs.296,032.30 ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

3. Before coming to the Labour Court the respondent had brought a departmental appeal also but to no purpose. Although m the memo. of appeal many objections have been raised but the learned counsel for the appellant has argued only this point that the jurisdiction of all Courts is barred under section 70‑A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. Clause (a) of the said section reads as under:‑‑ "No Court or other authority whatsoever shall have jurisdiction to entertain, or to adjudicate upon, any matter which the Provincial Government, the Registrar, or his nominee, any arbitrator or liquidator, a society, a Financing Bank, a Co‑operative Bank or any other person is empowered by or under this Act, or the rules or by‑laws framed thereunder, to dispose of or to determine." The words "validity of anything done‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑under this Act or the rules or bye laws framed thereunder" used m clause (b) of section 70‑A of the Co‑operative Societies Act, 1925 are very significant. In cases where an order has been passed in derogation of Co‑operative Societies Act or the rules or by‑laws framed thereunder, clause (b) of section 71 is not applicable and such an order can be challenged in a Court of competent jurisdiction. The case of the respondent was that he was dealt with not according to the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. In other words, his case is that the Efficiency and Discipline Rules were violated in his case. Rather the appellant has not shown any disciplinary rules. Section 71 says that the Provincial Government shall frame rules to carry out the purpose of the Act. Clause (g) of section 71(2) says that the rules will provide for the appointment, suspension and removal of the members of the committee and other officers. Under section 71, Co‑operative Societies Rules, 1927 have been framed but its rule 55 further provides that the Committee of every Co‑operative Bank and a Society having a working capital of over Rs.100,000 shall frame rules for regulating the appointment, removal and promotion of its employees. Firstly, there is no evidence if the capital of the appellant‑bank exceeds Rs.100,000 and IH secondly no rules framed under rule 55 have been produced. If there are no rules, then Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 would apply and for its violation an employee of the appellant‑bank can challenge the order of termination from service he is covered by the definition of workman either given in Standing orders Ordinance,1968 or Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Thus, the Labour Court had jurisdiction and the impugned order is not without jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, as mentioned above, has not raised any point except the question of jurisdiction which has been dealt with above.

5. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. A.E./626/Lb. P