Wage Commission Award

Statement of employee recorded by Enquiry Officer during course of enquiry against him, whether covered by para. 258(5), Wage Commission Award

Statement of employee made before Enquiry Officer during course of enquiry, which had already been considered and incorporated inquiry report could not be considered as "employee's statement" under para.258(5), Wage Commission Award, which was required to be forwarded alongwith enquiry report to Competent Authority for final decision of case

Order of Competent Authority in absence of "employee's statement" was, thus, not legal order

Dismissal of employee from service having been found illegal on account of non-compliance of procedure prescribed under para.258(5) of the Wage Commission Award, proper course would have been to leave it open to Authority to proceed against employee, if so desired in accordance with the rules

Authority was given option to proceed in accordance with law against employee, if it so desired

Criminal case initiated against employee having failed up to the High Court, no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter open for Authority to proceed against employee.

Expressions written explanation and "employees' statement" -as used in para.258(4)(5), Wage Commission Award-Connotation

Employee's entitlement to be given opportunity to defend himself against enquiry report

Object of allowing employee to offer his statement to answer and meet enquiry report stated. [Words and phrases],,

Petitioners through their application had sought direction to the effect that employer (Bank) which in utter disregard to its lawful rights for appointment of children of deceased employees, was conducting test and interview of candidates, should be restrained from conducting such test and interview

Directions were also sought that Bank be restrained from such violation of lawful rights guaranteed and secured to petitioner under Wage Commission Award as well as under various settlements carried out between the parties on various occasions

Bank was conducting test and interview of candidates without considering and complying with requirement of para. 145 of Wage Commission Award published in 1984 which had provided that at least one child of deceased employee or member of staff should be appointed by Bank against first available vacancy in grade for which child would be eligible under normal rules

Provision of para. 145 of Wage Commission Award, in circumstances, had vested a right in petitioners for which Bank had no plausible explanation to reject or discard

Various other settlements were also duly signed by the parties whereby demand of petitioner had also been admitted by Bank—Petition filed by petitioners in which they had sought implementation of aright which had been conferred upon them by Wage Commission Award and other settlements, was accepted and Bank was directed to consider children of deceased employees or deceased members of staff against first available vacancy in each grade as a candidate for which child would be eligible under normal rules and not to recruit upon posts without complying with requirements of para. 145 of Wage Commission Award in future.

Petitioner Federation alongwith C.BA. had sought direction from National Industrial Relations Commission to the effect that employer (Bank) be restrained from conducting test and interview for appointment of children of deceased employees of Bank as same was in utter disregard to their lawful rights for appointment and that recruitment of cashiers and guards by Bank be also declared in violation of Wage Commission Award

Directions were thus sought that Bank be restrained from such violation of lawful rights guaranteed and secured to petitioners under Wage Commission Award as well as under various settlements carried out between parties on various occasions

Held, demands of petitioner were fully covered under para. 145 of Wage Commission Award which had vested a right in petitioner

Contention of employer Bank that petition was in contravention of provisions of Constitution of Pakistan Art.25 whereby equality before law had been guaranteed, were misleading as petitioner had not contravened any provision of the Constitution of Pakistan, for petitioner was seeking implementation of right which had been conferred on him by Wage Commission Award and other settlements

Equality before law would not mean that no person could have some legal rights secured under some enactment Award, lawyer settlement.

Petitioner, a Jamadar Guard of Bank on retirement at age of superannuation was only granted Provident Fund but denied benefit of pension/gratuity which was payable to him under Wage Commission Award

Bank contended that applicant opted for old Retirement Benefit Rules under which National Bank of Pakistan had to contribute to Provident Fund an amount equal to the amount contributed by the employee and that applicant was not a workman

Applicant had opted for old Retirement Benefit Rules, his contention that he had signed the form of option without knowing its contents, could not be believed

Held, applicant having exercised his option in favour of Old Contributory Provident Scheme and having also accepted the dues under said Rules, could not claim benefits under new Pension Rules.

Terms and conditions of services of employees of Nationalised Banks and other financial institutions are governed by- Wage Commission Award

Provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, have no application in case of such employees

Any right available to a workman under Wage Commission Award, however, is enforceable under provisions of S. 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, like any other Award.

Failure to show satisfactory progress should be a reality and not just a garb for terminating services of probationer.

Six months period of probation is provided under para. 232 of the Wage Commission Award in case of candidates selected for appointment and said period of probation would not exceed-Employee failing to show satisfactory progress during his probation, the appointing authority under para. 233 might extend his period of probation or terminate his service

Services of petitioner employee, however, could not be terminated after about a month of completion of his period of probation of six months as para. 233 was not available in his case.

Order passed without show-cause notice and opportunity of being heard being violative of principles o natural justice would be illegal, void and of no legal effect.

Departmental rules providing remedy of departmental appeal-Contention that since no departmental appeal was made, grievance petition was not maintainable repelled

Departmental rules being not statutory law, grievance petition was maintainable.

High Court on writ petition holding that Wage Commission Award being not an Award as defined in Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 its infringement can be remedied by National Industrial Relations Commission and not by Labour Court

Decision of Labour Court on grievance petition of Bank employee seeking redress against infringement of Wage Commission Award set aside in appeal as Labour Court had no jurisdiction in such matter

Grievance petition directed to be returned to petitioner-respondent for presentation before proper forum.

Order of termination simpliciter was not justifiable-Case of employee being not covered by para.234 of Wage Commission Award, his services could be terminated on some good grounds without which such order would not be did.

Terms and conditions of service of employees of nationalized banks including those pertaining to disciplinary action are to be governed by the Award of Wage Commission which could lawfully be enforced under S.25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, like any other Award Labour Court could, therefore, competently decide bank employee's grievance

Respondent, a confirmed employee, involved by petitioner Bank in criminal cases and termination of his services ordered during pendency of investigation of those cases

Further consideration was that service of respondent could no longer be utilized and that he was absent from duty

Background of respondent's termination was thus indicative of fact that the case was not one of termination simpliciter but his services were no longer required within the meaning of R.15(2) of National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules or para. 234 of Wage Commission Award

Respondent discharged in criminal cases and on charge of absence from duty no charge-sheet or show-cause notice served on him in that behalf

Termination of respondent's services, held, was merely a colourable exercise of employers'powers under R.15(2) of Staff Service Rules read with para. 234 of Wage Commission Aware].

Held: a person removed from service would cease to 'remain a "workman's as defined in S. 2(xxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969

Such employee could not seek relief under S. 25-A before Labour Court

Infringement of any right guaranteed by Wage Commission Award

Remedy for

Proper forum would be National Industrial Relations Commission and not Labour Court.

Ss. 25-A & 38-D-Wage Commission Award.-Enforceable by petition under S. 25-A-Petition for relief against infringement of right guaranteed by Wage Commission Award-Maintainable.

Wage Commission Award-An award for purposes of Ordinance-Infringement of rights guaranteed by such Award can be redressed by Labour Court under S. 25-A.

Wage Commission Award-Infringement of Relief can be sought before Labour Court-[1982 P L C dissented from].

Violation of Can be challenged by grievance petition before Labour Court-Plea that decisions of Wage Commission being awards of National Industrial Relations Commission relief against violation of such award was within jurisdiction, of N. 1. R. C. only-Repelled.

Worker re-instated with back benefits.

Grievance petition maintainable on basis of such award.

Right guaranteed under such Award enforceable by grievance petition under S. 25-A.

Ss. 2 (ii), 25-A & 38-C-Award of Wage Commission-Though not covered by definition. of "award" under S. 2 (ii)-An award guaranteeing right enforceable under S. 25-A.-[1982 P L C 1 dissented from].

Bank employee aggrieved of dismissal from service-Grievance notice served after expiry of three months from date of dismissal order

Departmental appeal not decided before or after service of grievance notice-Grievance notice, in circumstances, held, not time-barred.

Labour Court-Jurisdiction of-Allegation against employee, he committed fraud by giving wrong age in -his application-Wage Commission Award, 1975 not mentioning inapplicable to Banks having statutory rules-In cases of misconduct, its paragraphs 258(4) and (5) guarantee right to show-cause notice and enquiry-Held, to follow procedure given in these paragraphs necessary ; S. 25-A applies and Labour Court has jurisdiction in matter.

Termination of service-Bank employee-Convicted and sentenced to imprisonment by criminal Court-Services terminated-Reporting for duty after acquittal and release from Jail-Termination order passed without any enquiry or opportunity of explanation and without independently proving alleged misconduct

Held, should have been re-instated after acquittal-Termination order further passed without one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof, held, not sustainable and rightly set aside by Labour Court-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 19691, S. 25-A and Wage Commission Award, Paras. .234 (6) (a) & (7).

Read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 1 (4) (c) and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 2 (xxviii) & 25-AEmployee of nationalised Bank seeking remedy against dismissal from service on account of misconduct-Plea that petitioner -was not a workman for reasons that bank run by Government and Wage Commission Award akin to statutory rules, both conditions for exclusion of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 stood fulfilled hence definition of workman under S. 2 (i) of that Ordinance not applicable-No evidence that pay of petitioner was more than Rs. 800 p.m.-Exception (vi) of S. 2 (xxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, held, would not apply even if duties of petitioner were of supervisory nature-Grievance, held, maintainable Authority to pass. dismissal order, according to Resolution of Board of Bank vesting on Circle Executive jointly with Senior Executive Vice-President-Service of charge-sheet and dismissal order passed by Executive Vice-President in circumstances, held, rightly set aside by Labour Court as incompetent.

Paras. 234 & 258 (4) & (5)-Nationalised Bank employee case-Negligence and misconduct-Services terminated for un satisfactory performance-Performance- Includes work as well as conduct Show-cause notice and holding of enquiry, held, essential before passing such termination order-Employee having completed probationary period termination even without allegation of misconduct, held, could be made with one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof Termination Order, in circumstances, held, rightly struck down by t Labour Court

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25-A & 37.

Ss. 25-A & 38-D-Wage Commission Award-An award creating right-Infringement of such right-Challengeable before Labour Court-Bank workman dismissed on charge not amounting to misconduct under sub-para. (2) of para. 258 of Wage Commission Award-Held, entitled to seek remedy under S. 25-A-Dismissal, held, does not amount to exclusion from definition of workman under S. 2 (xxviii).

S. 4 and Wage Commission Award, para. 258 (2) (b)-Double punishment-According to para. (2), held, one or more punishments can be awarded.

S. O. 10-C read with industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38-A to H and Wage Commission Award, paras. 283 & 284-Bonus payable to workers as terms and conditions of service through usage or settlement

Not superseded by Wage Commission Award.

Ss. 2(ii), 34, 22-A(8)(c) & 38-C read with Wage Commission Award, 1975, para. 237-Jurisdiction-Matter of enforcement of Wage Commission Award-Within jurisdiction of Labour Court if raised by Trade Union not being an industry-wise Trade Union or Federation of such Trade Unions-Words "any award" used in S. 2(ii)-Embrace all types of awards under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969-Award of Wage Commission-Binding, a guaranteed right and enforceable by Labour Court under S. 34-Circular issued by Bank introducing written test and interview for promotion of its employees, held, contrary to Wage Commission Award and liable to be set aside.