First Wage Commission Award

Services of workman were terminated without issuing him any charge-sheet, without holding any enquiry and without declaring him as absconder

Order of dismissal, held, could not be sustained.

Term "competent authority" used in para. 258(4) & (5) of Wage Commission Award, 1975 includes authority who has been delegated powers legally under respective Rules

Rule 5 of Habib Bank Staff Service Rules, 1981 empowering "Executive Board" to delegate powers

Term "Executive Board" either defined in Rules nor finding mention in Articles of Association

Powers vesting in Directors or Board of Directors and in absence of any valid delegation powers of charge-sheeting and removal from service could at best be exercised by the person who had appointed the employee concerned.

Essential ingredients that employee should have been caught red handed in course of commission of wrongful act and that wrongful act should be manifest so as to exclude necessity of observing procedure of sub-paras. (4) and (5)

Allegation that employee while seeking employment had produced certificate describing himself as "C" class Matriculate whereas it was subsequently found that he was "D" class Matriculate; Certificate on record disowned by employee and further that he had not asserted to be "C" class Matriculate

Allegation requiring evidence to prove production of certificate and further such allegation not that of being caught red handed while committing alleged wrongful act

Provisions of cl. 6(c) of para. 258, held, were not applicable

Employee, in circumstances could not be said to have committed any misconduct because at the time he was alleged to have produced matriculation certificate he was not yet an employee and he could be said to have caused deception but it did not amount to misconduct because misconduct could be committed only by an employee and not by an outsider

Order of Labour Court setting aside order of removal from service and awarding reinstatement with back benefits maintained by appellate Tribunal.

Para. 237 of First Wage Commission Award envisaged that promotion could be earned on the basis of experience, length of service and overall performance of an employee-Prescription of a written test was violative of provisions contained in para. 237 of the First Wage Commission Award.

Wage Commission was deputed to fix rate of wages and determine other terms and conditions of service in respect of workers of a Bank

Every worker, according tc decision of the; Wage Commission, would be entitled to be paid the wages and governed by the terms and conditions determined by the Wage Commission-Promotion is the cardinal condition of service for the workers of the Bank which has been regulated by para. 237of Wage Commission Award.

Award of Wage Commission, could be enforced under S. 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1909 irrespective of fact whether provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance were applicable or not- Services of employee of Bank, who was no more a probationer, terminated without termination notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof,

Such termination of service not being in accordance with the Award of Wage Commission, held, was illegal and merited to be set aside.

Labour Appellate Tribunal coming to on conclusion that there was no justification to maintain that services of the employee were no longer required, that it was merely colourable exercise of powers and that his services were terminated for collateral considerations and not for reasons envisaged in para. 234 of Wage Commission Award

Such an order of termination, held, was a mala fide.

First Wage Commission Award, paras. 237 & 238-Jurisdiction constraints on Wage Commission limit paras.237 & 238 of the Award of promotion to workmen within the category of workmen and not to any category outside the jurisdiction of the Wage Commission

Test/interviews held by employer, for the promotion of employees from clerical to officers' cadre for judging their suitability for promotion were, therefore, not violative of paras. 237 & 238 of the First Wage Commission Award. [p. 3681 D

Allegation that in application seeking employment it was wrongly mentioned that accused was F.A whereas he was actually a Matriculate which was the required qualification Misstatement so made prior to entry in service in circumstances, held, did not constitute misconduct.

Not necessary in case of proceedings under S.O.15(4) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Mandatory only in case proceedings under Wage Commission Award

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) S.0.15(4)

Wage Commission Award (First), para. 253(5).

Para. 258 (9) & (16)-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25-A-Grievance petition of Bank employee-Limitation No provision of second appeal to Bank Authority provided under para. 258 (9) and (16) of First Wage Commission Award-Appeal rejected by concerned Appellate Authority but employee making second appeal-Limitation for grievance notice and grievance petition, in circumstances, held, started from date first appeal rejected.

Para. 236-Absence from duty-Termination of service of Bank employee-Absence by submitting leave application supported by medical certificate-Does not amount to "un-authorised absence" Employee submitting application for leave-Neither information regarding rejection of leave application sent within reasonable time nor direction to appear before any particular Doctor and for submission of medical certificate from such Doctor given-Publication of notice to resume duty through newspapers-Not a proper compliance of para. 236 requiring sending of notice through registered A. D. post-Termination of service treating employee as on un-authorised absence, in circumstances, held, wrongful-Order of Labour Court awarding re-instatement with back benefits from date employee reported for duty, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38 (3).

Para. 258 (4) & (5)-Misconduct-Violation of rules and acts of negligence-Amount to misconduct entailing punishment of dismissal-Bank employee making advances in contravention of rules-Charge proved-Competent authority not acceding to request for pardon

Labour Court, in circumstances, held, would not interfere in dismissal order passed by competent authority Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38 (3).

Bank employee-Disciplinary action for misconduct-Second show-cause notice- Mandatory - Punishment awarded without second show-cause notice - Not sustainable-Technical defect

Grievance petition against dismissal succeeding on grounds of failure to serve second show-cause notice - Petitioner, held, rightly disallowed back benefits-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38(3)-Wage Commission Award (First), para. 258 (5).

Personal hearing before competent authority Not necessary Statement of employee alongwith enquiry report to be sent to competent authority

Wage Commission Award (First), para. 258(5).

Finding of enquiry relating to remaining 8 charges, in circumstances, held, could not be used against accused due to non-issuance of second show-cause notice hence dismissal order on one admitted charge also not maintainable

Dismissal order not maintainable on purely technical grounds of non-issuance of second show-cause notice

Labour Court, held, rightly disallowed back benefits

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38(3).

Resultant dismissal order, in circumstances, set aside by Labour Appellate Tribunal awarding re-instatement without back benefits Wage Commission Award (First), para.258-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38(3)

Explanations called by in-competent authority and dismissal order also passed by incompetent authority-Alleged misconduct proved

Dismissal order, held, not sustainable-Appellate Tribunal awarding re-instatement without back benefits-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25-A & 38(3).

Retaining employee in service for two years, in circumstances, held, implied approval of appointment and termination without cogent reasons - not Sustainable

Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition set aside by Appellate Tribunal awarding re-instatement with back benefits

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25-A & 38 (3).

Para. 258(4) & (5)-Second show-cause notice and supply of copy of enquiry report before imposition of penalty-Essential-Dismissal order passed without supply of copy of enquiry report and second show-cause notice -Not sustainable-Reinstatement due to technical defect-Accused not entitled to back benefits-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38(3).

Paras. 233 & 234-Termination of service-No arbitrary powers given to Banks to shunt out employees without giving cogent reasons-"Services no longer required"-Not a reason-Explicit reasons should be given as to why "no longer required".

Para. 258 (4) & (5)-Bank employee-Dismissal from service for misconduct- Second show-cause notice and supply of copy of enquiry report

Necessary-Dismissal order without delivery of copy of enquiry report and second show-cause notice, held, not sustainable -Reinstatement awarded by Labour Court without back benefits and permission for fresh enquiry from stage of illegality, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 38 (3)-[P L D 1981 S C 225 held not applicable].

Misconduct-Bank employee - Negligence and inefficiency -Amounts to misconduct forming basis of dismissal - Cashier charged for shortages of amount on different dates and also of opening account in wife's name by forging her signatures -Dismissal from service, in circumstances, held, not exceptionable

First Wage Commission Award, Para. 258 (2).

S. 25-A read with First Wage Commission Award, Para. 233Termination of service during probation-Interference by Labour Court-Service of probationer terminable during probation period if work found unsatisfactory - Powers of termination cannot be exercised arbitrarily - Work must actually have been found unsatisfactory-Labour Court has jurisdiction to interfere where it is not proved that actually work was not satisfactory - Bank employee (cashier) alleged to have refused to accept a challan when he had closed summary of daily transaction - Such refusal not contrary to rules of Bank rather quite in accordance with such rules-Order of termination of service during probationary period simply by recording "on ground of unsatisfactory work", in circumstances, held, not sustainable.

Appointed on trial basis-Holding of enquiry, held, not necessary for termination of service-First Wage Commission Award, paras. 234 & 258 (4) & (5).

Termination of service-Bank employee-Appointed for fixed period short of probation period-Termination on expiry of specified period-Not objectionable-First Wage Commission Award, Paras. 234 & 236.

Ss. 25-A & 38 (3) read with First Wage Commission Award, Para. 234-Words "is employed" used in S. 25-A-Does not necessarily mean that employee must be in service at time he brings his grievance petition-Dismissed or ousted workman can also file grievance petition before Labour Court-Bank employee employed as godown keeper for goods of particular customers of Bank Continuing in service for about 16 months-Such employee, held, acquired status of permanent employee-Services terminated on closing of accounts of particular customers on plea that his services were no longer required-Neither one month's notice nor pay in lieu thereof given-Termination, in circumstances, held, illegal and violative of right guaranteed by para. 234 of First Wage Commission Award hence challengeable under S. 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969-Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition on ground that be was a temporary employee set aside and re-instatement without back benefits awarded by Appellate Tribunal.

Para. 258-Misconduct-Bank employee empowered td grant cash credit facility and to fix period and time-Alleged to have unauthorisedly enhanced amount and period of letter of credit-Such act not contrary to any rule-Would not amount to misconduct Dismissal from service treating such act as misconduct, held, not sustainable.

Absence from duty-Bank employee case-Seven days' notice for resumption of duty must be given-Notice not given-Procedure of para. 258 (4) and (5) of First Wage Commission Award, 1975 not followed - Termination of service, in circumstances, held, illegal-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25-A read with First Wage Commission Award, 1975, para. 234, 236 and 258 (4) and (5).

Ss. 25-A & 38 (3) read with First Wage Commission Award, para. 233-Bank employee-Termination of service during probationary period-Permissible only if employee fails to show satisfactory progress-Powers of termination -Not arbitrary and can be exercised only if there is in reality a ground for that.-No such grounds disclosed either to employee or before Labour Court Labour Court's order dismissing grievance petition simply for reason that it was a termination during probationary period, in circumstances, held, not justified hence set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded-Labour Court directed to re-decided petition after opportunity of evidence to parties on point whether performance of employee (appellant) was actually unsatisfactory and if so to such an extent that he could not improve by extension of probation period.

S. 25-A read with First Wage Commission Award, Para. 258(1)Wage Commission Award has taken place of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, -1968-Remedy against infringement of rights guaranteed under Wage Commission Award can be sought under S. 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance-Bank employee entitled to appeal before higher authorities-Cause of action for grievance petition before Labour Court accrues when appeal if filed rejected-[1979 P L C 543 dissented from].

Ss. 25-A & 38 (3) read with First Wage Commission Award, para. 258 (4) & (5)-Bank employee-Termination of service for misconduct-No enquiry held into alleged misconduct-Procedure in para. 258 (4) & (5) of First Wage Commission Award not followed-Labour Court awarding re-instatement but not allowing back benefits on grounds that petitioner (employee) succeeding on technical grounds of non-compliance of requisite procedure

Order of Labour Court in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

Dismissal for misconduct-Service of charge-sheet, ordering inquiry, service of second show-cause notice after inquiry-To be done by competent authority viz. appointing authority-Bank employee-Appointed by Senior Vice-President, Head Office-Charge-sheeted by Zonal Vice-President and inquiry order also passed by him-Order of dismissal passed by Head Office without perusal of enquiry report but on recommendations of Zonal Office-Dismissal order in circumstances; having not been passed competently not sustainable-First Wage Commission Award, paras. 258 (4) & (5).