1982 PLP 81 (PLC)

Samiullah Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1stSeptember, 1981. This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned VIIth Labour Court, given on 25thOctober, 1980, dismissing the grievance petition filed by the appellant against the dismissal of his second appeal challenging his removal from service.

2. It may be pointed out that the appellant was removed from service by order, dated 9th March, 1978. He challenged this order by way of a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court at Sukkur but his grievance petition was dismissed by the learned Labour Courts on 18thJune, 1978. He preferred an appeal to this Tribunal against the decision of the learned Labour Court. That appeal was disposed of by the following order, dated 8th April, 1980 :‑ "Mr. Wasiullah submits that the appellant had filed a second appeal to the Senior Vice‑President of the Bank as admitted by the Manager of the Bank, Mr. Hasan, and if the Bank is prepared to pass orders on that appeal, the appellant would like to withdraw the present appeal. Mr. Samiullah on behalf of the Bank states that if any such appeal is pending with the Bank, the Bank is prepared to pass orders thereon. In view of this statement of Mr. Samiullah, Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi does not press this appeal, which, stands disposed of as not pressed. (Sd.) Appellate Tribunal."

3. In view of the above order, the appellant's second appeal, which was pending with the respondent, was considered and rejected by its order on 3rd May, 1980. The appellant challenged the dismissal of big second appeal before the learned Labour Court but the said Court dis missed his second grievance petition also. The appellant has accordingly come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

4. The short point involved in this case is whether any right of the appellant, which has been guaranteed or secured under any law, settle ment or award, has been infringed and for the enforcement of which right, the appellant is entitled under the law to file a grievance petition. It was frankly conceded by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi that under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules applicable to the employees of the respondent‑Bank only one appeal is provided and that rules make no provisions for a second appeal. He, however, contended that the right of second appeal accrued to the appellant in consequence of the order of this Tribunal, dated 8thApril, 1980. This contention is not strictly correct. As appears from the order of this Tribunal, Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi offered to withdraw his appeal if the second appeal of the appellant was considered by the bank. Although the rules do not envisage the filing of a second appeal, Mr. Samiullah Khan agreed that the second appeal would be considered by the Bank authorities. This has actually been done. The right of the appellant, if any, in the circumstances extended only to consideration of the appeal, but the rejection of this appeal, which is not provided under the law; in my opinion did not confer any right, at least under any law, settlement or award, to the appellant to file a second grievance petition. Of course if the respondent. Bank had failed to consider the second appeal of the appellant or it had been rejected by an authority not competent to do so, the appellant could A have validly contended that his vested right had been infringed. This is, however, not the case in these proceedings. The consideration of the second appeal was a matter of grace by the Bank authorities although it was in consequence of the settlement made by Mr. Samiullah Khan.

5. In the circumstance, I would concur in the view of the learned Labour Court, though for altogether different reason, and would accord ingly dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed,