1994 PLP 571 (PLC)

Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Muhammad Asghar Malik for Respondent No.

3. Date of hearing: 11th May, 1994. This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petition No. 1260/1989 and Writ Petition No. 1462/1989 involving identical questions and arising out of order dated 11‑12‑1988 passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore.

2. The dispute in this case relates to reinstatement with back benefits of Pervez Akhtar Khokhar, respondent No.3 herein, an employee in the Muslim Commercial Bank Limited. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, recorded a finding of fact that the dismissal of respondent No.3 was not passed by the competent authority. It would be advantageous to reproduce para. 5 of the judgment, which reads "So far as the other point is concerned, the same has not been touched and decided by the learned lower Court. It has not been found whether the order of dismissal was passed by a competent or incompetent authority. The appellant is Grade‑III. Officer and according to Item 12(b) of the Muslim Commercial Bank Rules, 1981, Senior Vice‑President of the Head Office and the President only are competent to pass dismissal orders but in the present case the dismissal order was admittedly passed by the Senior Vice‑President. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show that the Senior Vice‑President had been delegated the powers and thus was competent.

3. When faced with this, Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal has erred in holding that dismissal order of Pervez Akhtar Khokhar was passed by the incompetent authority. This finding, it was urged, was in total disregard of the power of attorney (Exh. R‑15) issued by the petitioner‑Bank in favour of the officer who passed/conveyed the dismissal order to respondent No.3. In support of his contention reliance was placed at para. 2 of the power of attorney executed in favour of Mr. Islam‑ud‑Din, which empowers him to engage, employ, control and dismiss Clerks, Servants and others whether engaged by the said attorney‑or by the Bank or otherwise.

4. The document relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner has no relevance to the facts of the present case. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal rightly held that under Item 12(b) of the Muslim Commercial Bank Rules, 1981, Senior Executive Vice‑President of the Head Office and the President are competent to pass dismissal orders in respect of Grade‑III Officers. Here the dismissal order was admittedly passed by a person who was not Senior Executive Vice‑President of the Head Office and, therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned order on this score. In any event, the plea raised by the petitioner is concluded by a finding of fact arrived at by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal after proper appraisal of evidence on record. This finding does not suffer from any misreading warranting interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

5. As to the back benefits, a finding was also recorded by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal that Pervez Akhtar Khokhar, respondent No.3 did not even orally assert that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the period of his unemployment. Keeping in view the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Muhammad Bashir and others v. Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others (1991 SCMR 2087) and General Manager, National Radio Telecommunication Corporation, Haripur, District Abbottabad v. Muhammad Aslam and others (1992 SCMR 2169), respondent No.3 was rightly held not entitled to back benefits. In view of the above, both the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed, but‑there shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1635/L Petitions dismissed.