Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑332 of 1979, decided on 28th March, 1979.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑

‑‑ S. 1, proviso‑Nationalised Banks‑Run under authority of Government and employees governed by statutory rules and Discipline Rules framed by Wage Commission‑Outside scope of Ordinance‑Cannot make application to Labour Court under S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A.

1967 P L C 556 rel.

S. F. H. Rizvi for Appellant.

Sultan Allanna for Respondent.

This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application under section 25‑A of I. R. O.

2. The appellant was working as a cashier in the respondent bank an amount of Rs. 330.50 was said to have been misappropriated by the respondent. Consequently he was charge‑sheeted and after inquiry he was found guilty and dismissed from service. Aggrieved by this he approached the Labour Court after serving grievance notice. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the banking institution was run by the authority of the Central Government and the Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable by virtue of section 1 of the Ordinance. It was further pleaded that the misconduct was established after due inquiry.

3. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the learned Presiding Officer upheld the plea that the Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable by virtue of proviso to section 1 of the Ordinance. He also came to the conclusion that the inquiry was properly held and misconduct was established by the evidence.

4. Aggrieved by this the present appeal has been filed. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is an admitted position that the Banking Institution was nationalised and had been run under the authority of the Government. Consequently, Standing Orders Ordinance is not applicable by virtue of proviso to section 1 of the Ordinance and therefore, application under section 25‑A of the I. R. O. was not maintainable. This view was taken by me in a case decided in 1977. In this view I am also supported by the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab reported in 1967 P L C 555 and 925. It may be noted here that Statutory Rules had been framed and award was given by the Wages Commission. Consequently the terms and conditions of the appellant were to be regulated by the Discipline Rules framed by the Wage Com mission.

5. In the result the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.