1988 PLP 477 (PLC(CS))

Wasiullah Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th September, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellant bank against an impugned order, dated 14‑7‑1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent directing his re‑instatement in service with full back benefits, under section 25‑A, I.R.0.1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was employed as a Cashier and while he was working at Sanjhoro Branch his explanation was called on 22‑2‑1981 in respect of non‑deposit of Rs.300.00 found excess on 8‑5‑1980. The respondent claimed that on this alleged charge, he was issued a charge‑sheet on 19‑4‑1981, and again on 2‑3‑1982, he was issued another charge‑sheet for the alleged charge of 75 days absence, and both these charge‑sheets were properly replied by him. However, by letter, dated 19‑6‑1982, one Mr. Ayaz Ahmed Qureshi was appointed as Enquiry Officer in respect of the alleged charge‑sheet, dated 12‑4‑1981, directing him to appear before the said Enquiry Officer on 27‑6‑1982. The respondent further claimed that he received another letter from the Enquiry Officer for his appearance on 20‑2‑1983, and vide another letter, dated 12‑4‑1983, he was again directed to appear before the Zonal Office on 13‑4‑83 and finally on 23‑11‑1983, he was served with a dismissal order. Thereafter, the respondent claimed to have submitted a departmental appeal on 17‑12‑1983, which was not replied to by the appellant bank till, 8‑2‑1984, when he submitted his grievance notice and subsequently grievance petition before the Labour Court on 22‑3‑1984. Finally, the case of the respondent was that the alleged charge‑sheet was hopelessly time‑barred, no proper and lawful enquiry was conducted and the matter was delayed for a long considerable time only to harass and victimize him; he was not personally heard and that the alleged charge was not at all proved, therefore, his dismissal order from service could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside.

3. The appellant bank resisted the petition on the ground mainly that the respondent was not covered by the Standing Orders Ordinance and that his services were being regulated by the Staff Rules of 1980 or at least of 1973. The appellant bank submitted that the charges were intimated to the respondent within the stipulated time and they were fully established in a properly and lawfully held domestic enquiry in which the respondent had fully participated and that no illegality had been committed and that he was rightly dismissed from service, therefore, he could not 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. Partab Rai, the learned Advocate for the appellant bank and Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that the Manager of the appellant bank had called the explanation of the respondent for the alleged charge of misappropriation and that the charge‑sheet, dated 12‑4‑1981 issued by the Zonal Head are two different documents having different narrations and that the alleged enquiry was held only on a charge‑sheet dated 12‑4‑1981. The letter, dated 22‑2‑1981 issued by the Branch Manager calling an explanation is not a charge‑sheet within the meaning of Standing Orders Ordinance, as the Branch Manager was incompetent to issue such charge‑sheet. Therefore, in view of this admitted factual and legal position, the learned Labour Court was quite right in holding the charge‑sheet as time‑barred and incompetent. On merits of the case, Mr. Partab Rai the learned Advocate for the appellant bank has no legs to stand. After a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, I am also of the opinion that the charge of any alleged misconduct against the respondent was not at all established through an alleged enquiry, which is nothing but simply an investigation in the shape of questions and answers. The respondent was not afforded an opportunity to?? cross‑examine any witness. The alleged enquiry was quite improper illegal and it cannot be sustained. The manner in which the said enquiry was conducted and the time consumed in completing the proceedings and thereafter issuing a dismissal order without affording an opportunity to the respondent to defend himself, clearly proves the mala fides on the part of the appellant bank. Therefore, the learned Labour Court was quite right to reject the same and setting aside the dismissal order of the respondent. 1, therefore, find nothing wrong with the impugned order which is well reasoned.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is directed to be reinstated in service, but, with a modification that he be paid 50% (fifty per cent) of the back benefits, forthwith. This amount of back benefits be paid to the respondent out of the total amount of back benefits already deposited by the appellant bank in this Tribunal and the rest amount of 50% of back benefits be returned to the appellant bank. A.E. /1089/Lb.S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.