1989 PLP 814 (PLC)

6. Reference may also be made to subsection (3) of section 36 of the I.R.O., 1969, which provides as under:‑‑ "(3) A Labour Court shall, for the purpose of trying offences under this Ordinance or the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (W.P. Ordinance VI of 1968), have the same powers as are vested in the Court of a Magistrate of the first class specially empowered under section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898). Even under this provision the Labour Courts are vested with the powers of Court of Magistrate only for trying offences under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance and I.R.O., 1969 and not for offences under any other law.

7. The question arises as to which Court is competent o try the offence under section 9 of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973. In this context it will be pertinent to refer to section 29 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subsection (1) of section 29 lays down:‑‑ "(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Code, any offence under any other law shall when any Court is mentioned in this behalf in such law, be tried by such Court" As already pointed out no Court has been mentioned in the relevant law for trying the offence in question. Consequently subsection (2) of section 29 would be applicable which reads as under:‑‑ "(2) When no Court is so mentioned, it may be tried by the High Court or subject as aforesaid by any Court constituted under this Code by which such offence shown in the eighth column of the second schedule triable." Under column 8 of second schedule the offences against other laws when punishable with imprisonment for less than one year are triable by any Magistrate. The offence under section 9 of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) C Act, 1973 is punishable with six months' imprisonment. As such it is triable by any Magistrate.

8. In view of this legal position the learned Labour Court had no General Manager, Hotel Intercontinental, Lahore and others v. Bashir A. Malik and others P L D 1986 S C 101; Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. v. Muhammad Humayun Khan and others 1988 S C M R 1664; Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills v. Abdul Ghani and others P L D 1975 Kar. 342; 1979 S C M R 30.1 and Rehmat Ali v. The Security Papers Ltd. and another P L D 1982 Kar. 913 rel. (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance notice‑‑Limitation‑‑Bank rules providing for departmental appeal‑‑Appeal made admittedly within prescribed limitation period but remaining undecided‑‑Grievance notice served about 4 months after date of departmental appeal‑‑Notice also not replied‑‑Grievance petition filed after 27 days from date of notice‑‑Plea of limitation with regard to grievance notice, held, was not acceptable. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and another 1984 P L C 1149 rel. (d) National Bank of Pakistan (Staflf Service Rules, 1980, Wage Commission Award, 1974‑75, Bank Disciplinary Rules‑‑ ‑‑‑R. 4‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15(4)‑‑Termination of service as a result of disciplinary action‑‑National Bank of Pakistan employee‑‑Order passed without show‑cause notice and opportunity of being heard being violative of principles natural justice would be illegal, void and of no legal effect. Noor Muhammad for Appellant. M.L. Shahani for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th December, 1988. This appeal is directed against the order, dated 5‑9‑1988, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. V at Karachi, whereby he has allowed the grievance petition filed by the respondent.

2. The facts leading to this appeal, in brief, are that the respondent was an employee of the appellants in the Officer Grade No. II, when he was transferred to Faisalabad from Karachi. The respondent did not proceed to Faisalabad but, instead submitted leave application, dated 10‑4‑1986, alongwith Medical Certificate. This leave application was rejected by the appellants vide letter, dated 12‑4‑1986, but, the respondent again repeated leave application, dated 14‑6‑1986, which also was rejected. On 10‑11‑1986, the appellants passed the impugned order holding that the respondent has vacated the appointment in the bank with effect from 20‑9‑1986 under Rule 15(3) of the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1980. The contention of the respondent was that his transfer to Faisalabad was mala fide due to a tussle with his superior officers, specially with Mr. Mashkoor over issuance of a Character Certificate of one Mr. Jehangir. He further contended that the order terminating his services was mala fide because of the aforesaid dispute. He filed an appeal against the order passed by the appellants on 8‑12‑1986, but, he did not receive any reply. He consequently served grievance notice on 3‑3‑1987 and thereafter filed the grievance petition before the learned Labour Court. The appellants resisted the grievance petition on the ground that the respondent was not a workman but was an officer and therefore jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under question and as such the proceedings pending before the learned Labour Court are quashed. However, it will not preclude the complainant/respondent No. 2 from filing the complaint before the competent Court for the offence, if authorised under section 10 of the said Act, of 1973. A.E./1383/Lb.S Proceedings quashed.