1996 PLP 191 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 18th September, 1995. This appeal arises from order of Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad allowing the grievance petition of the respondent and reinstating him in service of the Bank with full back benefits.

2. The facts in brief are that the respondent had originally been. appointed in Bank's service in the year 1964 as a clerk. He rose to be an Officer Grade‑III in the Bank by the year 1977. At the time of alleged misconduct he was working as Manager of Jati Branch. During the period from January, 1986 to June, 1986 the respondent as a Manager granted loans to Agriculturists. The amount of loans was Rs.1,72,978 to 19 persons and Rs.19,95,224.50 to 215 persons. In these loans several irregularities and violations of Banks' standing instructions were detected. These loans were awarded without obtaining even account opening forms. Photographs of illiterate recipient of loans were not obtained. The respondent did not insist on evidence regarding ownership of land and while granting those loans on the basis of lease hold grants he did not obtain verification from the Mukhtiarkar and loans were given on the basis of old documents without verifying whether they still subsisted. The respondent as a Manager did not insist on production of guarantees and he committed several other irregularities and contravened the instructions of the Head Office. In some cases the very identity of the persons was doubtful as their signatures differed from the signatures on the Identity Cards. On account of this gross‑negligence and carelessness the respondent was served with charge‑sheet and a domestic enquiry was conducted. Mr. Allah Bux Halepota, Officer Grade‑I Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty and the respondent was dismissed by Mr. GA. Soomro, Assistant Vice‑President with effect from 1‑11‑1987.

3. It is alleged by‑the respondent that he filed Departmental appeal against the order of dismissal but this fact has been denied by the concerned Bank. On 14‑5‑1989 the respondent sent his grievance notice to the Bank after expiry of one year and seven months. He then filed his grievance petition before the Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad. The learned Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry was defective and the respondent was no: limn sufficient opportunity to defend himself. That there was no evidence of any misappropriation on the part of the respondent. The learned Labour Court was also of the view that the Labour Court had jurisdiction even though the Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable to the case because the respondent was a Manager and not a worker, relying on an authority of the Tribunal 1991 PLC 615, that a Grade‑III Officer was a worker. The learned Labour Court accordingly allowed the grievance petition and re‑instated the Bank Manager with full back benefits.

4. Mr. Gulzar Ahmed for the National Bank has first argued that the respondent was not merely a Grade‑III Officer of the Bank but he was full‑fledged Manager of Jati Branch. That as Manager he could not be considered to be a worker as he was Incharge of a Branch and his duties were purely managerial. He did not come within the definition of worker.

5. It has next been argued that grievance notice and grievance petition were clearly time‑barred. But even if a Departmental appeal was filed the respondent could not claim the delay of more than three months. The learned Advocate has then pointed the allegations in the charge‑sheet that the respondent was guilty of gross‑negligence in allowing these loans without proper investigation.

6. It has next been argued by Mr. Suleman Habibullah on behalf of the respondent that even Grade‑III Officer of the National Bank would be regarded as a workman in view of the decisions on this point. That the Departmental appeal is provided in the National Bank Staff Rules and the time spent is to be excluded in computing the period of limitation. That the appeal was filed on 1-11‑1987 and it was not decided even by 15‑5‑1989, so the grievance note was sent on 14‑5‑1989 and the grievance petition was filed on 1‑8‑1989; and lastly regarding the advances of huge amount as loans made to Agriculturists Mr. Suleman Habibullah has argued that the charges of negligence have not been proved and even the complainant was not examined. The main question in this case is whether the respondent as a Manager of National Bank Jati Branch could be considered as worker. A Manager is an agent of the Bank and usually holds a Power of Attorney of the Bank. He is Incharge of the Branch arid his‑ duties are managerial and supervisory and he can even appoint subordinate staff: Under the circumstances the Standing Orders Ordinance and the I.R.O. have no application to the case of a Manager who is not a worker. If aggrieved he could have recourse to ordinary civil law,

7. Regarding the point of limitation it is true that under the Bank Rules there is provision for Departmental appeal but the respondent could only wait for the result of the Departmental appeal, for a reasonable time. In this case he has taken more than one year and seven months and this delay cannot therefore be condoned. Lastly the service of the Bank is of delicate nature and the Manager is required to do his work with utmost honesty and he has to take all the proper precautions required under the Banking instructions and the law as well and use his common sense. He had to take precautions for the welfare of the Bank and not to spend money of the Bank as charity. In this case according to the documentary evidence and the charge‑sheet the respondent has been guilty of a gross negligence. Even the account opening forms were not taken from the persons who were granted loans. Their identity was not established beyond doubt. No verification of their assets was established. Such Manager can therefore not be retained in service of the Bank.

8. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside since the grievance petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. by the Manager was not maintainable.

9. For the reasons stated, the appeal is allowed as prayed. The back benefits if any deposited may be refunded to the Bank. H.B.T./2508/Lb.S Appeal allowed.