1993 PLP 844 (PLC(CS))

Hidayatullah Abbasi for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1987. This is an appeal filed by Messrs National Bank of Pakistan against an impugned order, dated 14‑6‑1983, passed by Sindh Labour Court No.VII, Sukkur, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, directing only his reinstatement in service.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent was a permanent employee of the appellant‑Bank since 1972 and in the year 1974, he was transferred and posted at Shikarpur Branch. The claim of the respondent was that though he was placed under suspension on 10‑5‑1977 without assigning any reason, yet, his suspension continued for more than three years which was challenged by him before the learned Labour Court who had allowed the same, vide its order, dated 7‑1‑1980. The respondent claimed that this order was impugned by the appellant‑Bank before this Tribunal and the order of the learned ‑Labour Court was maintained. However, as per claim of the respondent, he was served with a Notice of imposition of penalty wherein false and baseless allegations pertaining to the years of 1975‑76 were levelled against him, resulting in dismissal from service, vide letter, dated 8‑10‑1981 and being aggrieved with the action of the appellant‑Bank the respondent submitted his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.

3. The appellant‑Bank had resisted the petition that as the respondent was involved in the charge of gross misconduct and thousands of forged and fraudulent cheques and vouchers were recovered from his Shikarpur Branch, therefore, after considerable scrutiny of the facts, he was served with the charge‑sheet resulting in his dismissal from service. Therefore, the appellant- Bank claimed that the respondent was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition, which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard, Mr. Hidayatullah Abbasi, the learned Advocate for the appellant‑Bank and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. From the perusal of the order‑sheet of the present appeal it would be evident that since the filing of the appeal by the appellant‑Bank and the service of the Notice of this Tribunal on the respondent, he did not put his physical attendance before this Tribunal on any subsequent date of hearing of the present appeal. It means that the respondent is not at all interested to defend the present appeal. From the evidence brought on record and the documents produced before the learned Labour Court, I am of the view that the respondent was involved into the alleged charge of fraud, misappropriation and opening of fictitious accounts thereby putting into heavy financial losses to the employee. It is also proved beyond doubt that the charge‑sheet issued to the respondent was not at all time‑barred as the bank was making internal investigations about the genuineness of the charge. The domestic enquiry held against the respondent was also correct. The learned Labour Court has not taken into consideration the facts and the evidence. Therefore, I would set aside the same.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I would set aside the impugned order and would allow the present appeal. The grievance petition of the respondent under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 would also stand dismissed. M.Y.H./1173/Lb.S Appeal allowed.