1989SCMR861 (PLP)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 4‑10‑1988 passed in Writ Petition No.708 of 1984. . The relevant facts are that Muhammad Javid Akhtar (respondent No.3 herein) was serving as Head Cashier in the Hall Road Branch of the Petitioner Bank at Lahore. He was served with a charge sheet on 7‑2‑1979 alleging disregard of Bank's Rules and misappropriation of money in relation to certain demand drafts and savings bank account deposits. In his reply to the charge‑sheet he admitted the disregard of the Bank Rules but pleaded that this was done in the interest of the Bank. He, however, denied the charge of misappropriation of money. The holding of an inquiry was ordered into the matter but the Inquiry officer instead of recording the prosecution evidence against the respondent and requiring him to enter upon his defence thereafter issued a questionnaire calling upon him to answer the questions contained therein. On the basis of the answers to the questions asked therein the Inquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of misappropriation as also of violation of the Bank Rules. In the result, the respondent was dismissed from service on 29‑11‑1980. The respondent moved the Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore, but his Grievance Petition was dismissed on 9‑5‑1983. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which accepted the appeal on 30‑1‑1984 and the respondent was re‑instated but without back benefits. The petitioner‑Bank challenged the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal through a writ petition contending, inter alia, that the Labour Appellate Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal as the correct forum in such matters was the National Industrial Relations Commission. This contention found favour with the learned Division Bench of the High Court hearing the writ petition and, accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. But on appeal to this Court, it was held that the Labour Appellate Tribunal was indeed the competent forum to hear the appeal. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the High Court for disposal of the writ petition on merits. On merits, the High Court agreed with the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal that this case involved only the violation of the Bank Rules and the said violation too was committed by the respondent in the interest of the Bank. On this view of the matter the High Court found that the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal did not require interference and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition on 4‑10‑1988, which order is now impugned by this petition for leave. Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh in support of this petition for leave to appeal has submitted that even on the finding of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal the respondent could not have been re‑instated into service. According to him, the matter could, at best have been sent back to the Inquiry Officer for disposal of the Inquiry in accordance with law because the main fault found with the conduct of the inquiry was that instead of the Inquiry Officer holding a proper inquiry he had substituted the same by issuance of a questionnaire and founded his finding on the replies given thereto by the respondent. At first sight this appears to be an attractive argument but a close perusal of the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal shows that this is not so. The Tribunal had, in fact, found that the charge of misappropriation of money was not established and only the charge of violation of Bank Rules was proved and that in these circumstances the order of dismissal was not justified. This is evident from the following extract of the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal:‑‑ "Since the enquiry officer wrongly held the charge of misappropriation of money as proved, the employee was prejudiced while prescribing the punishment. Needless to say that the charges of misappropriation of money are more heinous than mere violation of rules, so if the charge of misappropriation of money had not been held as proved, the employer may have prescribed some other punishment short of dismissal. So the punishment of dismissal is not maintainable." Keeping this aspect in view the Tribunal allowed only the partial relief in so far as the back benefits were not allowed to the respondent. The learned counsel for respondent No3 (Malik Muhammad Asghar) who appeared in support of the Caveator further pointed out that the respondent had been dismissed from service on 29‑11‑1980 and has not so far been re instated. He has been out of service for more than 8 years and on reinstatement too he will not be given the back benefits. Accordingly he has already suffered immensely for the violation of the Bank Rules, a violation committed bona fide and in the interests of the Bank and that the remand of the case to the Inquiry Officer for inquiry afresh at this stage would cause severe hardship to respondent No‑

3. We agree. The order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is a fair and just order and the High Court, therefore, was right in not interfering with it A in writ jurisdiction. We would, accordingly, uphold the order of the High Court in this respect and dismiss this petition. the upshot is that this petition is dismissed. A.A./N‑133/S Petition dismissed.