1999 PLP 297 (PLC)

Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, presided over by Mr. Riaz‑ul -Hassan Alvi, has rendered a decision on 6‑7‑1998 to dispose of the grievance petition, filed before it by ex‑Assistant Manager, Rana Zahid Iqbal, against the Emirates Bank International, Karachi and Manager of the Lahore Branch of the Bank. The Authorities of the Bank, namely, the Country Manager, at Karachi, and the Manager at Lahore have preferred the present appeal.

2. Rana Zahid Iqbal was employed by the Bank as Chashier in the year 1991, and he was promoted as Assistant Manager in the year 1996. On 25‑6‑1997, he was issued a show‑cause notice, to which he submitted his reply on 27‑6‑1997. He was dismissed from service on 30‑6‑1997. He had made grievance of the fact that no proper enquiry had been conducted and no opportunity had been provided, to him to be heard in person or to lead evidence in defence. He made a representation on 1‑8‑1997, which too did not yield any fruit.

3. The allegation against Mr. Zahid, entailing his ouster from service, was that password or codeword, which he was secretly maintaining, was divulged to another official, Muhammad Anwar by name, and in absence of Mr. Zahid, Muhammad Anwar made use of it, so that the cheque, dated 21‑6‑1997, in the amount of Rs.2,50,000.00, payment of which had specifically been stopped, was got encashed by Muhammad Anwar in favour of one Akram Khan.

4. The fundamental question engaging the attention of the Court is the one, respecting its competence in the matter. The learned lower Court has taken cognizance of the matter, considering Mr. Zahid Iqbal as a workman. This inference or conclusion has stoutly been resisted by the bank people, according to whom Rana Zahid was an officer and could in no manner claim to be a worker. He was drawing Rs.13,200 per month as salary, and was designated as Officer‑B Grade. His job description has been detailed in the document Exh.P.2, Serial No.7 of which has pointedly been referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent. It has been provided in unambiguous manner that the job‑holder would not be authorized to sign any memorandum or letter and the same must be got co‑signed by the Manager (O.P.S./B.C.R.) or any other Officer‑A Grade. This provision is indeed amazing and is in keeping with the stand‑point of the employee, raised to the effect that he had no managerial or administrative or executive functions to perform as an Officer, and was only symbolically known as an Officer of the Bank, without having any powers of an officer, as is known or understood in common parlance. Rana Zahid Iqbal says that he was just a clerk, who had been provided a table and a chair in the office, and could use only a telephone extension, having no independent telephone of his own. Although he was getting ostensibly handsome amount of salary, that did not really make him officer, as even peons/drivers of the bank were drawing salary in 4/5 figures. The real officers were being paid salary in lacs, 2/3 lacs even), and the quantum of salary (Rs.13,200.00) he was getting mattered a little. This was not materially in keeping with the parameters of an officer. It occurs explicitly in the statement of bank's witness, Riaz Ahmad R.W.1, that there was no clerk in the establishment of the bank, as all of them were officers. Probably this had been done with a view to obviate the incidence of trade union formation, as officers evidently could not constitute a trade union. I must say that as I were able to guage the status of Zahid Iqbal, keeping in view his movements, behaviour, posture and speech, I could not take and treat him as an officer, as he looked like and conducted himself as an ordinary official or a subordinate person, even though seemingly he may be a cultured and not a crude fellow. He may have even a few officers subordinate to him as has been stated by R. W.1, but the same did not raise his status, as a number of people, ostensibly known and called as Officer do not in fact belong to the officers class but were drawn from clerical establishment, and, as such, the so‑called 4/5 officers who were working under him, as is stated, were only persons of clerical status, junior to him. Since all of them were called officers, they too were known by the same description, and thus Rana Zahid Iqbal was treated as a senior 'officer', though in fact he was not an officer, in the real sense. In a case reported as 1979 SCMR 304, a Chief Accountant even was held to be a workman.

5. On record is also available a letter, dated 6‑8‑1996, addressed to Rana Zahid by the Chief Manager, stating that although his marketing efforts were being appreciated, his performance was to be reviewed by the Branch Management, and the same would reflect on his annual performance appraisal. This would leave little doubt about the fact that his performance was always under examination and scrutiny, and he had little to do as regards appraisal of performance of others, working with or under him. I have, as such, little doubt in my mind that Rana Zahid Iqbal was doing only clerical or manual work, and was, by all standards of the bank, being treated as a subordinate official. He therefore, was entitled to invoke the aid of the Labour Laws, by having access to a Labour Court, if at all he was made to incur any unpleasant situation, in the course of his career, or had any grievance to make, in my considered opinion. He competently filed the grievance petition in the Labour Court, under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. I have no doubt in my mind about maintainability of the grievance petition, treating him to be a workman.

6. The charge he was made to face was that he had either disclosed a secret code word to a colleague, or permitted him, directly or indirectly, to make use of it, so that Muhammad Anwar did utilize the password in making payment of huge amount of Rs.2,50,000,00 to a claimant, although such payment had not to be made, the same having expressly been prohibited. It is not denied that on that score, the bank did not suffer loss of even a penny, as the entire amount was re‑deposited. Possibility of the pass‑word having become known to a colleague, by frequency of its use, could not be ruled out, and it was not necessarily an act of dishonesty, or even culpable carelessness or negligence on the part of the holder of the code‑word namely, Zahid Iqbal, who at the relevant time had gone to Holiday Inn Hotel to have lunch with a customer. This was not a wrongful practice, as he had the permission to sit with and have meals with a customer, and the charges even could be borne on the funds of the bank. There is a documentary proof of Zahid Iqbal being away from the bank premises, at the crucial moment; and the fact that Muhammad Anwar who made misuse of the code‑word was actually at fault; is borne out from the event that he (Muhammad Anwar) had been ousted from the employment of the bank, on the very next date, as has been testified by Riaz Ahmad R.W.1.

7. In the context of these incidents and events, one could very well gather that Rana Zahid Iqbal might not at all have been a party to the ugly transaction, although he had the misfortune to fall prey to the mechanization contrived by Muhammad Anwar. Then, he should not have been punished in the harshest and irretrievable manner it was done. Being a civilized and law‑abiding person, he even submitted his resignation to the bank management, entreating at the same time that the same be accepted, so that he could venture to have employment elsewhere, in the light of the standing and the experience that he had acquired, while in the service of the Emirates Bank. He had even invoked compassionate grounds, while establishing contact with the Country Manager, Mr. Kovin Flannery (Exh.R.1), in the hope that if his resignation was accepted, he would be able to seek job elsewhere, so that being a young man he did not remain without a job, though-out his life, and his children did not strave, he had even undertaken to withdraw his case from the Court, by which he meant that he would not pursue further his grievance petition pending before the Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore. The management of the Bank however was so stiff and inflexible, in dealing with him that they did not deem it desirable to even think in terms of pondering over his request in a magnanimous manner and instead they stubbornly stuck to the stand that they would not let him go scot‑free and would rather follow him to the grave.

8. This appears to be the reason why the learned lower Court extended to the official certain amount of indulgence or clemency and observed that there was no harm if the bank management modulated its opinion only to the extent of acceptance of the official's resignation rather than insisting upon his dismissal from service, ordered in a callous, if not cruel, manner. First he was sent on forced leave and then he was ousted from service specially, showing him no soft corner, and leaving no avenue of future employment open for him. In the words of the learned lower Court, it will not be fair, as also in consonance with the considerations of equity and fairplay to shut down to the poor person all the doors of his future employment, although, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the request made by the official deserved sympathetic consideration. There being no grounds and no tangible premises to differ with the verdict of the lower Court, I also find myself inclined to afford to the aggrieved person the same relief. Instead of setting aside the order of the official's dismissal from service, his resignation will be deemed as having not been turned down. The appeal is disposed of, in these terms, similarly as the grievance petition has been decided by the learned lower Court. There shall be no order as to costs of the litigation throughout. H.B.T./948/(Trib.) Order accordingly.