2000 PLP 158 (PLC)

3. The employee was dismissed, in consequence of an enquiry initiated on an order dated 18‑4‑199.4, given to him, on account of his "gross negligence bank has suffered a loss of huge amount of Rs. 2,383,939.". The employee in his reply, dated 21‑4‑1994, to the aforesaid charge‑sheet, denied the charges, as false However, the Bank constituted a regular enquiry by appointing Mirza M. Aslam, Vice President Labour, Islamabad Office, as enquiry officer and the General Manager issued a notice dated 4‑7‑1994, to the employee to appear before the enquiry officer at Karachi. The employee participated in the enquiry. The Bank produced three witnesses on its behalf and the employee examined himself only and produced no witness on his behalf. After concluding the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 17‑7‑1994 to the General Manager. Based on the said enquiry report, the employee was dismissed from service on 1‑1‑1995, against which, the employee submitted an appeal to the General Manager. During the pendency of the said appeal, the employee however, served upon the General Manager, his grievance notice, dated 21‑3‑1995 which was followed by another grievance notice dated 22‑3‑1995. The employer/Bank replied to both of them on 22‑3‑1995 to the employee. The employee, thereafter, filed on 21‑5‑1995 his grievance petition to the Labour Court No.5, bearing No.134/95, under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for his reinstatement with back benefits.

4. Having received notice of the said application from the learned Labour Court No. 5, the employer submitted its 'reply statement. The employee/applicant filed his affidavit‑in‑evidence. The respondent/Bank filed three affidavits‑in‑evidence of Mafzar Ali, Farooq Kharadi and Ameer Ahmed on its behalf.

5. After recording evidence and hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Labour Court No.5 gave his order on 29‑11‑1997 holding that "the enquiry against the applicant/employee was not conducted fairly; it was against the norms of natural justice, illegal, vague, void ab initio directing the employer/Bank to reinstate the applicant/employee in the service within thirty days from the date of the said order with a further direction to hold fresh enquiry on the same charge‑sheet dated 18‑4‑1994 with an observation that, "if the enquiry officer holds the applicant guilty of the offence, the respondents are at liberty to dismiss him again. In case the enquiry is ordered in favour of the applicant then the applicant will be entitled to all back benefits". Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the‑ aforesaid order, both, employer and employee, the appellant herein in two respective cross‑appeals, referred to above, filed their appeals.

5. Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, learned counsel for the employer/Bank submits that he had taken a specific objection in the Labour Court that the respondent/employee was not a workman within the meaning of section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In any case, he was an officer in Grade‑III performing supervisory nature of duties and not a workman in Law. His first grievance is that the learned Labour Court did not at all consider these objections. Although on an application, made by the employer/Bank to consider the said objection fast, the Labour Court had passed an order dated 6‑7‑1997 that these objections will be heard along with the merits of the case. The entire thesis of the learned Presiding Officer seems to be based on the legality or illegality of the conducting of the enquiry.

6. Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel for the respondent/ employee submits that he does not claim to be a worker under section 2 (xxviii) of he Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969; rather he claims to be a workman under section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. His case falls within the purview of subsection (3) of Standing Order 12 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. 7.Learned counsel, however, agree to the following order, which is passed by consent:‑‑ That the order, impugned in both the appeals, be set aside and the case be remanded to the learned Labour Court No.5 to hear the case afresh allowing the parties an opportunity to lead any other evidence, if they so desire, and decide the case on merits including the questions, raised by the learned counsel for the Bank, forming part of their reply statement. It will, however, be admissible, as suggested by the learned counsel for the parties, that the learned Presiding Officer shall frame the issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties before recording evidence.

8. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Learned counsel for the parties agree to cooperate with each other as far as possible to expedite the disposal of the case and will not seek adjournment without a just cause. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Labour Court ‑No.5 on 15‑3‑1999 for settlement of issues. Announced in open Court, this the 8th day of March, 1999. H.B.T./292/K/Lab (Trib.) Order accordingly