1993 PLP 490 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 23rd February, 1993. The circumstances in which this appeal has been preferred, at the instance of M/s. National Bank of Pakistan, in brief, are as under:‑‑

2. The respondent was working as a `Guard' with the Bank and in the month of May, 1987 which is relevant for our purposes, he was posted at a Branch of the respondent at Shahbaz Building, Hyderabad. He was on duty on the night between the 13th and 14th of August, 1987. On the morning of the 14th August, it was found that there was a burglary in the night. The attempt to break open the lock of the safe, by the use of gas cylinders did not succeed, but the robbers had escaped with some guns, ammunitions and a telephone apparatus lying within the bank premises. The matter was reported to the police and also there was a domestic enquiry, wherein Ayaz Ahmed and Dadan Khan, the Manager of the Branch, were examined. On the report of the Enquiry Officer the respondent was dismissed on 14‑12‑1987. He had preferred a Departmental appeal which also came to be rejected on 5‑5‑1988. Thereafter the respondent had given a grievance notice and filed the petition before the Labour Court. The petition was resisted on the ground that the provisions of Labour laws were not applicable in the case of Bank employees. The other averments came to be denied.

3. The petitioner was his own witness. Ayaz Ahmed Qureshi, Dadan Khan, the then Manager of the Branch and Mehmood Khan, the Enquiry officer, appeared on behalf of the appellants (herein).

4. The Labour Court, for the reasons given by it, allowed the petition but declined to award the back benefits as the petition was allowed on technical ground.

5. It was contended at the Court below that the petition did not lie also on the ground that the petitioner was employed as a Security Guard but Mr. Gulzar Ahmed very properly did not press this contention before me, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Security Papers Limited v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another PLD 1988 SC 180.

6. The salient feature of the case is that the respondent had worked, according to his own statement, for nine, ten days at a stretch, without break, and even on the showing of Dadan Khan, the Branch Manager, since 9‑8‑1987 up to 13‑8‑1987. Dadan Khan has also admitted that the appellant had been requesting for the filling up the post of the second guard which came into effect only on the morning of the 13th. The plight of the respondent can well be imagined. He had remained on duty on a considerable number of days without any break. If with all that strain the respondent stated that he had broken down and went to Tando Jam where his family resided, for treatment and attention from the family members, he, may not be very wrong.

7. It is true that there was a telephone inside the Branch but according to the respondent he had tried and there was no response. The suggestion that there were some telephones available in the vicinity and there was a Police Station not far away, would not be sufficient. I agree that as a guard at the Bank and with so much at stake, he could not abandon his .place of duty. Dereliction of duty is to‑be visited with stern punishment but in the instant case the callous approach of the Bank authorities cannot go unnoticed. They remained busy with their heap of papers, without bothering to see whether it was humanly possible for any one to cope with such a demanding duty for days together, without any rest and respite. I am of the opinion that he was much more sinned against than sinning.

8. Certainly there is no suggestion that he was an accomplice or had facilitated. the robbery because of intentional absence from duty. Even if he had gone to the Manager's house to inform him of his plight I doubt if some replacement could be arranged. It is on the record that there are a number of shops and business houses that have arrangements for watchman in the night. Be that as it may, on the showing of Dadan Khan the respondent had produced a Medical Certificate to the effect that he had been attended to on the night of the incident by one Dr. Laghari. There is nothing to show that this aspect of the matter was considered by the authorities when the charge‑sheet was issued.

9. In view of all this it is not necessary to consider the challenge to the validity of the domestic enquiry, conducted under the Staff Rules of 1980, which were non‑statutory in nature.

10. I am of the opinion that the order of reinstatement, in the circumstances of the case though for different reasons was proper. As a result will uphold the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2166/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed