1997 PLP 569 (PLC)

These three identical appeals by the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan are directed against the orders of the Sixth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad allowing the grievance petitions of the three Bank Officers and directing their reinstatement with back benefits.

2. The facts in brief are that respondent Abdul Jabbar was working as Assistant Director Grade‑17 in the Bank. Mr. Abdul Jabbar was supervising the working of Agrobased Industries at Hyderabad. He was charge‑sheeted for inefficiency and misconduct. He failed to furnish any reply to the charge sheet and failed to attend the Departmental enquiry which was held ex pane and he was ordered to be removed from service with immediate effect by the authority under the Statutory Rules of Conduct. The Bank being directly under the control of the Central Government at Islamabad.

3. The other respondent Mr. Liaquat Hussain was working as the w Mobile Credit Officer Ver Branch. His duty was to recommend or reject Loan Application by examining and checking the assets sought to be pledged with the Bank for sanction of the loan. He was also an officer of the grade of Assistant Director. He was charge‑sheeted for having fraudulently recommended the loans to the tune of Rs.17,83,

269. The loan amount having been sanctioned in favour of fictitious persons and embezzled entirely.

4. The third respondent Mr. Allah Ditta worked as Assistant Director, Sojawal Branch as Operation Officer Ver Branch and he was charge‑sheeted for acts amounting to gross misconduct of inefficiency and negligence namely that he released payment of 1,45,85,100 in a fraudulent loan case without the orders of the Manager. In another fraudulent loan case he caused loan to the Bank to the tune of Rs.25,000 and Rs.1,20,

000. In the third case he credited an amount of Rs.25,000 to his own current account and debited the same to the accounts of M/s. Barkat Ali Account‑holders. Lastly he issued a Payment Voucher payable to himself at Karachi Branch without approval of the Manager. Apart from these, there were other fraudulent sets mentioned in the charge‑sheet against him. He was, therefore, proceeded against under sub‑Regulation (3) of Regulation 5 of A.D.B.P. Officers Service E&D Rules.

5. After regular enquiries under the Bank Officers (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules these three officers were ordered to be removed from service of the Bank. They filed petitions under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. before the Sixth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad. The learned Labour Court considered these officers to be workmen doing the work of clerks and allowed their grievance petitions reinstating them in service with back benefits.

6. The respondents are admittedly Grade‑17 Officers in. the statutory corporation, the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, under control of the Pakistan Government. The Bank Officers are governed by their own Statutory Rules and not by the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

7. It is being argued that these officers by nature of their work may be considered as workers as defined under the I.R.O. Under the Agricultural Development Credit Manual, Volume I Mobile Credit Officers are to be recruited from young and energetic Agricultural graduates and post‑graduates for field operation. Their duties are to visit the villages in their jurisdiction to identify the borrowers and their farms and the purpose for which loan is to be utilized focusing on Rural Development aspect and granting loans up to Rs.25,

000. They are responsible for recovery of the loans 100% and they have to observe the guidelines for selection of the borrowers. They have to issue their monthly tour programmes and maintain their monthly performance and tour diary. Their tour diaries are issued to the ,Regional Managers and others for sanction of their T.A. bills.

8. The other Officer Abdul Jabbar acted as Assistant Director Agrobased Industries. His job was supervisory in nature and he was not a workman in the Industries concerned.

9. The last Officer Mr. Allah Ditta worked as Operation Officer. His job description was to check all the relevant documents in the loan cases, to check the transactions of withdrawals to ensure that the loan is paid to genuine persons and such other jobs of supervising and checking.

10. A Grade‑17 Officer in parallel Government Department is a Gazetted Class Officer and he is neither a manual worker nor skilled worker nor a clerk under the definition of worker in the I.R.O. His designation as Assistant Director, his pay, his job description also show that he is an officer and not a clerk. Under the circumstances his petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. was clearly not maintainable and the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the disciplinary action taken by the Bank under the Statutory Rules and reinstate these officers with back benefits. If such practice is allowed to continue then no Bank can function in this country. A Bank Officer is not a labourer requiring special safeguards under the Labour Laws.

11. The orders of the Labour Court in these three cases are clearly without jurisdiction and are not maintainable. These orders are accordingly, set aside and all the three appeals of the Bank are allowed. The back benefits if any deposited in this Tribunal may be refunded after the expiry of 30 days. H.B.T./171/Lb.S Appeals allowed.