1993 PLP 841 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑‑Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct‑‑ Alleged misconduct not established by any corroborative evidence and impugned action taken by Authority not competent to proceed‑‑‑Order of Labour Court awarding reinstatement with back benefits, in circumstances, maintained by Appellate Tribunal. Khalid Javed for Appellants. Bashir Awan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th April, 1988, DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellants‑Bank against an impugned order, dated 13‑12‑1986, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, who had allowed the grievance petition or the respondent under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, directing his reinstatement in service with full back benefits.

2. It was claimed by the respondent before the learned Labour Court that he was a IInd Officer in the appellants‑Bank posted at Saddar Branch, Hyderabad and was doing the work of clerical and manual, in nature, viz., preparation of various vouchers, handling the cash, posting of ledgers, preparation of drafts and miscellaneous correspondence etc., thus, under the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance; 1968, he was a workman within the ambit of Labour Laws. The respondent claimed that on 1‑8‑1983, a charge- sheet was issued to him by the Zonal Head of Hyderabad who was not competent to do so and though a satisfactory reply was submitted by him, but, an unfair biased, illegal and contrary to the requirements of principle of natural justice domestic enquiry was conducted against him resulting in his dismissal from ‑service, vide letter, dated 25‑7‑1984. So, being aggrieved he claimed to have filed a departmental appeal and after getting rejection letter of it, he had sent his grievance notice to the management of the bank followed by his present grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969. This claim of the respondent was controverted by the appellants‑Bank by submitting that as the respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Labour Laws particularly in view of the facts that he was holding a Power of Attorney, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition of the respondent. On merits, it was the case of the appellants bank that as the charge of gross‑misconduct had been fully established against the respondent in a fair and lawful domestic enquiry in which he was fully afforded opportunity to defend himself, therefore, he was rightly dismissed from service, hence, he was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.

3. Both the parties led their respective evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

4. I have heard Mr. Khalid Javed, the learned Advocate for the appellants bank and Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Advocate for the respondent. I have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the written arguments, submitted by both the parties. At the very outset, I would observe here that it is an admitted position on record that the appellants bank did not seriously dispute the claim of the respondent that he was a `workman' within the purview of Labour Laws. It has also been specifically admitted by the main witness of the appellants bank, namely, the Zonal Head in his cross‑examination that the respondent was neither given any Power of Attorney nor it was ever shown to him, and even, no such intimation was given to the respondent. It has further been admitted by the Zonal Head the alleged power of attorney did not bear the signatures of the respondent nor had acted upon it at any time. In view of this admitted position, the learned Labour Court was quite correct in holding the respondent as a `workman' entitled to maintain his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969. 1 would accordingly maintain this conclusion of the learned Labour Court. As regards the merits, there is nothing on record on behalf of the appellants bank that it had neither disclosed the nature and member of alleged documents or any other material claimed to have been found in the drawer of the table of the respondent at the time of so‑called surprise checking. Nothing as such, has been produced by the appellants bank either before the Enquiry Officer or even before the learned Labour Court. Nobody knows what was actually detected and where it has gone, and if at all, some documents were found from the table of the respondent, whether they come within the definition of a misconduct' liable to major penalty of dismissal from service. Further, it has been established from the record that neither the Zonal Head nor the Circle Executive was competent to proceed against the respondent. Also, there is no cogent and corroborative evidence on record on behalf of the appellants bank against the respondent. In view of the matter, I am of the view that the learned Labour Court has passed a correct and lawful impugned order, therefore, I would maintain the same. As regards the submission by Mr. Khalid Javed, the learned Advocate for the appellants bank, I would observe here that he had miserably failed to substantiate his case, so I would not agree with any of them. In my view there is nothing wrong with the impugned order and it must be maintained.

5. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order, therefore, I would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. The result would be that the respondent is directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits, forthwith. The amount of back benefits, already deposited by, the appellants‑Bank before this Tribunal be immediately paid to the respondent, after due verification. A.E./1239/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.