2012 PLP 244 (PLC)

Muhammad Sabir and Shaukat Ali Chaudhry for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th March, 2012. DECISION ALI MUHAMMD BALOCH (MEMBER).

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, named above, against the order dated 14-6-2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.VIII, Larkana, in Grievance Application No.27 of 2005 under section 46 of I.R.O. 2002 (repealed) initially this appeal was filed before High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench at Larkana through Labour Appeal bearing No.01 of 2007 and after coming into existence of this Tribunal, the said appeal has been received. Heard Ch. Muhammad Latif Saghar learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Sabir learned Counsel for the respondents bank. Both learned Counsel have also advanced their written synopsis. After going through the record and proceedings of the case and arguments, I have come to the following:

Through this appeal, appellant had challenged the findings of the learned Labour Court in Grievance Application bearing No.27 of 2005 by which the appellant was considered to be a non- workman and his grievance application was dismissed being not maintainable. The facts give rise to the filing of present appeal and application before learned Labour Court are that he was posted as Branch Manager in Officer Grade-III at Khairpur Nathan Shah District Dadu of Messrs Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited where he was served with a charge-sheet for the allegation of misconduct, which was replied and allegations were denied by the appellant. Thereafter, he was dismissed from service after holding domestic enquiry. Appellant had served grievance notice and then filed grievance application before learned Labour Court. Respondents have contested the matter by filing written statement and raising legal objections. The foremost legal objection is that the appellant being Manager in Officer Grade-III was not a workman under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 hence the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction. Appellant had filed his affidavit in evidence and examined himself in the witness-box. His cross-examination is very important as because he himself admitted his status as under:

"It is correct that being Manager my exclusive duty was managerial and administrative. Annexure "L" are account opening forms which bears my signatures. Annexure "M" are agri sanction advices which bears my signatures, along with loan applications Annexure "N" are the documents pertaining to the commercial loan recommended by me. Annexure "O" copies of cheques which bears my signatures. Annexure "P" are papers in connection of cash position of the branch which bears my signature as Manager. Annexure "Q" are documents regarding correspondence which bears my signatures as Manager. Annexure "R" is TDR which bears my signature. Annexure "S" are some credit and debit vouchers and pay-in-slips which bears my signatures as Manager Column. Annexure "T" are certain expenditure vouchers which bears my signatures. Annexure "U" are some deposit slips which bears my signatures." After conclusion of the evidence of appellant, Mr. Munir Ahmed Larik and Mr. Salahuddin Soomro had filed their affidavits in evidence on behalf of the respondent-bank, but they could not be cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the appellant and the application moved by the learned Counsel for the appellant on 18-8-2006 before learned Labour Court, which was rejected, adjournment declined and the side to cross-examine the witnesses was closed and the witnesses were discharged by the learned Labour Court. Means thereby the evidence led by the respondents-Bank has gone unrebutted being not cross-examined, hence in view of the above clear cut admissions and failure to cross- examine, the respondents witnesses rendered the appellant with no evidence in his favour. So, in view of his admissions and no cross-examination, learned Labour Court has rightly held him to be a "non-workman", hence I am in agreement with the learned Labour Court and findings of the learned Labour Court are hereby confirmed. Resultantly, appeal is dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./2/SLT Appeal dismissed.