P L D`1995 Supreme Court 626 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.--This civil petition for special leave to appeal has been made by the United Bank Limited against respondent No.l, Munir Ahmad Naseer and two others, namely, Ppnjab Labour Court No.3 at Ferozewala, Lahore and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore.

2. Respondent No.l, Munir Ahmad Naseer, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, was serving as Grade-II Officer in the petitioner's Zonal Office at Okara when he was dismissed from service for misappropriating cash received by him as Branch Manager. He challenged the order of his dismissal by making grievance petition, under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore, which set aside the order of his dismissal, without allowing him back benefits. The order of the learned Labour Court was assailed by both sides by means of separate appeals which were disposed of by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore. The learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner but partly accepted the appeal of the respondent by allowing him 50% of the back benefits. Order of the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal was attacked by the petitioner by filing writ petition before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed by Mr. Justice Falak Sher in limine.

3. It was, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent, being an Officer of Grade-II, was not a workman within the meanings of the Industrial Relations Ordinance or the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968, and, therefore, could not invoke the provisions of section 25-A of the said Ordinance to voice his grievance. It was maintained by learned counsel for the petitioner that the above pint was canvassed before the learned Single Judge, who decided the writ petition, but he did not make any speaking order thereon. He invited our attention to page 75 of the Paper Book to show that the said contention was embodied in paragraph 6, appearing at the said page, which is part of the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal.

4. Plea raised by the petitioner also find mention in the grounds set out in the writ petition filed before the High Court. It is in the second ground which reads as under:-- "The respondent No.3 being an officer Grade-II is not a workman under the IRO, 1969 as well as under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. That even otherwise the admission of respondent No: 3 that he was holding the post of Manager having supervisory and managerial capacity was sufficient to prove that he was not a workman under the IRO, 1969 and could not come under section 5-A of the IRO, 1969 to redress his grievance. The relevant portion of his statement in cross-examination is as under: `It is correct that I was working as a Manager in Haveli Branch of UBL District Okara. 6 persons were working under me. I used to recommend leave applications of the staff members to the Zonal Head for approval. Before the issuance of charge-sheet I was performing every functions including writing of ACRs of the clerical staff. I also used to recommend the increments of the staff. I was the attorney of the bank'."

5. From the following order passed by learned Single Judge, it appears that the above point was canvassed before him also but he was not impressed by it: "Feeling discontented therewith, present petition has been recourse reiterating the contentions, on which, despite the query, concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below remained undislodged. Consequently, the petition being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed in limine." (Underlining is by us).

6. In view of what has gone above, we feel that this Court should examine in depth the question of jurisdiction of the Labour Court with regard to officers of the category to which respondent No.l, after hearing all the parties to the present case. Accordingly, we allow the petitioner's special leave to appeal against the impugned decision of the learned High Court.

7. In the end, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the stay order granted by this Court on 1st June, 1994 suspending operation of the judgment of the learned High Court may be allowed to continue till the disposal of the appeal. This prayer of the petitioner is also acceded to. A.A./U-67/5': Leave granted.