1973 PLP 164 (PLC)

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)

‑ S. 25‑A‑Limitation‑Question not applicable in eases of void impugned order. Ch. Muhammad Anwar for Appellant. Ch. Abdul Rashid for Respondent. This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 29th August 1975 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Gujranwala on a petition made to him by the appellant under section 25‑A of the I. R. O., 1969 far re‑instatement. Petition was rejected so he has come in appeal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the Junior Labour Court as well as the impugned order. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that appellant was working as Incharge of the Hafiz Abad branch of Gujranwala Central Co‑operative Bank. He was charge‑sheeted for misconduct and misappropriation of Hark property and money. Before this charge‑sheet he submitted his resignation, which is Exh R‑12 in the file. But Management decided to proceed against him so the charge‑sheet was issued to him. He gave his explanation on which is Exh. R‑

11. Through this explanation also he offered resignations. This is the admitted position of the parties that no enquiry wash hell and only relying on service role of the bank No. 39 (IV) (B) of the Bank Service Rules his services were terminated with the remarks that to institute an enquiry against the official would be purposeless formality in view of his unsatis factory services. In his explanation he stated that cashier was transferred and a newcomer took‑over without, getting any formal charge from the out going cashier. It might be the fault of the cashier.

3. This is admitted position of the parties that appellant's resignations were not accepted and he was charge‑sheeted. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that Central Co‑operative Bank, Gujranwala has got its can service rules and those rules permit the employer to dismiss an employee even without enquiry.

4. Central Co‑operative Bank, Gujranwala is registered as Society. Its rules cannot be termed as Statutory rule and as such these rules cannot override the Law. Either employer should have accepted the resignation and if they had proposed to issue a charge‑sheet then enquiry was must to find out the guilt of the employee. It is just possible that in an enquiry Management would have come to a different conclusion. So order of dismissal of the appellant was without lawful authority and void.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised another objection to the effect that appellant gave a grievance notice to the employer after the completion of 3 months so his grievance notice was net within time and so he did not come to the Junior Labour Court within time. Learned counsel for the respondent has urged in this behalf that there, is no evidence as to when dismissal order was conveyed to the of appellant. Apart B from this there is a long line of rulings laying down that there is no limitation regarding void orders.

6. In that view of the matter I am constrained to set aside the order of the Junior Labour Court. It is therefore, set aside and appeal is accepted and respondent is directed to re‑instate the appellant. No back wages are allowed in the special circumstances of the tease but continuity of the service would not be affected.