1984 PLP 1448 (PLC)

of West Pakistan Industrial and Commer cial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applicable-Dismissal order for alleged misconduct passed without any enquiry-Charge-sheet served beyond one month hence time-barred-Labour Court setting aside impugned dismissal order awarding reinstatement with 54% back benefits-Contention in appeal that in such situation Labour Court could order fresh enquiry-Contention rejected-Held: Ordering fresh enquiry, in circumstances, would be putting premium on illegalities committed by Bank (appellant)- West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 1 (4) and S. O. 15 (4) read with Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38 (3). Islamabad Club v. Punjab Labour Court No. 11 etc. P L D 1980 S C 307 and Liaquat Ali v. National Hank of Pakistan and 2 others 1980 P L C 868 distinguished. Kazi Mamoon for Appellant. Date of bearing : 3rd April, 1984. The five appeals Nos. SUK-74 to 78 of 1984, are being disposed of by this common order as they involve questions of common facts and law. The facts leading up to them briefly stated are that the respondents were the employees of the National Bank of Pakistan, the appellant herein. They were dismissed from service on account of misconduct by an order of dismissal, dated 18th October, 1981. They filed grievance applications under section 25-A, I. R. O., 1969, before the learned Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur. It was agitated therein on behalf of the appellant-bank that the appellant bank was established and carried on under the authority of the Federal Government and had statutory rules of service, conduct and discipline and also that the respondents were not workmen within the meaning of section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, therefore, the applications were not legally maintainable. The learned Labour Court held that the appellant-bank had no statutory rules of service, conduct and discipline of its own, but since the respondents were not workmen within the meaning of section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, their cases would not be governed by the Standing Orders and finding the applications not maintainable dismissed the same. The respondents pre ferred appeals before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide its order, dated 25th January, 1984, set aside the order passed by the learned Labour Court holding that the appellant has no statutory rules of service, conduct and discipline and that the respondents were workmen within the meaning of section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. This Tribunal therefore, allowed the appeals, holding that the cases of the respondents would be governed by the Standing Orders Ordinance and remanded the cases to the learned Labour Court for decision on merits. The learned Labour Court vide its order, dated 29th February, 1984, held that admit tedly no domestic enquiry was held and even the charge-sheet was time- barred, with the result that the provisions of Standing Order 15 (4) were not complied with. Consequently the learned Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal of the respondents from service and directed their rein statement in service with 50% back benefits. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant bank has come in these appeals.

2. I have heard Mr. Mamoon Kazi, the learned counsel for the appel 1ant-bank. On the admitted facts of the case no domestic enquiry was held as well as the charge-sheet was time-barred in view of the provisions of Standing Order 15 (4) as rightly held by the learned Labour Court. Confronted with the situation, Mr. Mamoon Kazi, the learned counsel for the appellant-bank has contended that in the situation, the learned Labour Court could order fresh enquiry, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Islamabad Club v. Punjab Labour Court No. 11 etc. (P L D 1980 S C 307). In the same context he has also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Liaquat Ali v. National Bank of Pakistan and 2 others (1980 P L C 868). I find the two decisions distinguishable. In the first case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found the enquiry defective as in the circumstances of that case it was observed that the respondent could not have reasonable opportunity of defending himself against the charges which bad formed the basis of disciplinary action against him. So far the second case is concerned, it appears to have been considered and decided on the basis of the rules as embodied in the Award of Wage Commission for Banks and Financial Institutions and the learned Tribunal finding the order of dismissal of the appellant therein having been passed as a result of non-compliance of the rules, set aside the order, and directed that it shall be open to the Bank to take action in accordance with law. The facts and the circumstances of the instant cases are obviously different inasmuch as, firsty; no enquiry was at all held; secondly even the charge-sheet was time-barred and the learned counsel for the appellant bank has obviously no answer to it ; and thirdly, that the service rules of the bank have not been held to be statutory rules of service, conduct and discipline as contemplated by proviso to sub-clause (c) to clause (4) of section 1 of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Ordering fresh enquiry in such circumstance would be putting premium on the illegalities committed by the appellant bank. Accordingly, I do not find any substance in any of the contention raised on behalf of the appellant bank by their learned counsel. No exception can, therefore, be taken to the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court.

3. The result is that the five appeals are dismissed in limine. A. E.