Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. JG‑504 of 1981/Pb., decided on 16th December, 1981. (a) Industrial dispute‑

‑‑ Promotion‑Bank employee‑Promotion always based on seniority- cum‑fitness and suitability‑Employer not satisfied with work and conduct of employee, held, cannot claim promotion as of right.

(b) Banks Nationalization Act (XIX of 1974)‑--

---

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

(c)

West Pakistan

--‑‑S. 1(4)‑Interpretation‑Nationalized Banks having their own statu tory rules or to whom Rules framed by Wage Commission apply, held, excluded from application of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.

(d)

West Pakistan

--‑‑Ss. 38‑A to 38‑I‑Rules‑Applicability of Rules framed by Wage Commission being statutory rules, held, applicable only to those Banks and financial institutions having no statutory rules of their own.

Munawar Ahmad Javed for Appellant.

H. R. Haider for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 15th December, 1981.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 16‑g‑1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2, The appellant was appointed as Clerk on 4‑9‑1974 and his post was redesignated as Assistant in the same grade. He on 16‑11‑1977 was suspen ded vide order Exh. P. 1 by the Branch Manager. Thereafter, he was given a charge‑sheet and as enquiry was held. By way of punishment his annual increments due on 1‑1‑1978 was stopped on recurring basis and warning was given. His promotion as Senior Assistant became due on 1‑1‑1978, but it was not given, although no written order was made to that effect. Two special increments became due to him on 1‑1‑1977, but they too were not given.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Enquiry Officer made enquiry on the basis of charge‑sheet. Exh. P. 6, which is time- barred, inasmuch as the defalcation on the basis of which charges were framed took place beyond the period of one month from the date of charge -sheet. Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable to banks, in view of proviso to subsection (4) of section t of the said Ordinance, as according to section 4 of the Banks Nationalization Act, 1974, no one else except the Government can establish and run Banks. So the nationalized Banks are being run by or under the authority of the Government. National Bank has its own statutory rules and moreover, the Wage Commission Award is also applicable to it. Thus both the conditions given in the proviso to section 1. (4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 are satisfied. Since Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable, the question that the charge‑sheet is time‑barred does not arise. Rather the grievance petition of the appellant was time‑barred. Special two increments were disallowed with effect from 1‑1‑1977 ; the grievance notice was given on 11‑2‑1980, which was followed by the institution of the grievance petition. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the appellant was placed under suspension, therefore, he could not challenge the stopping of incre ments. I cannot agree with him as his two special increments were stopped with effect from 1‑1‑1977 long before he was suspended. Since be was not under suspension at the time he was disallowed special increments, he was in a position to challenge the same, but he did not do so and allowed the time run down.

4. So far as the question of promotion is concerned, the appellant cannot challenge it, .because his seniority is not disputed. Promotion is given always on the basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness and suitability. If the employer‑ was not satisfied with his work and ‑conduct, he cannot claim promotion as of right and cannot have it enforced through the Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that disallowing of promotion amounts to double punishment. I cannot agree with him Promotion was withheld after the enquiry was held and punishment was awarded. At the time of awarding punishment, it was not said that he would not be promoted. It is, therefore, clear that promotion was refused as he was not considered fit for it. Moreover, according to Wage e Commission Award paragraph 258 (2) (b), withholding of promotion is a punishment and according to sub‑para : (2), one or more, than one penalty can be imposed. So even if it be said that promotion was with held by way of punishment, it is not illegal. The objections of the learned counsel to the effect that the copy of the enquiry reported was not given and second show‑cause notice was not given are without force, inasmuch . as there is no such provision in the Wage Commission Award. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 would apply and in support of his argument he relies upon 1980 P L C 1118. This judgment was pronounced by Mr. Justice Z. A. Channa, Chairman. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal. He has observed that the National Bank of Pakistan is being run by or under the authority of the Government, but the second condition given in first proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 does not stand fulfilled. He has remarked that the National Bank of Pakistan has its own statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline applicable to the workmen employed therein, which have been framed under. Ordinance XIX of 1.949, but they are superseded by the disciplinary rules framed by the Wage Commission Award for Banks and financial institutions and contained in the report for 1974‑75. Further on it has been observed that the disciplinary rules framed by the Wage Commission for Banks can only be construed as an Award of the National Industrial Relations Commission or a decision of the Full Bench of the Commission and cannot be construed as statutory rules for the purposes of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. If according to this authority, the rules framed by the Wage Commission are not statutory than how they can supersede the statutory rules of the National Bank. If this view is taken that the rules framed by the Wage Commission do not command the statutory position than the statutory rules of the National Bank would stand and cannot be superseded by the rules framed by the Commission and thus the second condition laid down in proviso to section 1 (4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 also stan;4"', fulfilled and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies to the National Bank and other nationalised Banks. If the intention of the Legislature is different than it may amend section 1 of the Ordinance, but as it stands, the only correct interpretation is that the nationalised banks which have their own statutory rules or to whom rules framed by the ., Wage Commission apply, are excluded from the application of the Standing ' Orders Ordinance, 1968. I am at loss to understand how the rules framed by the Wage Commission do not command the statutory nature. The very formation of the Wage Commission is under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the rules have also been framed under the said law and they are enforceable according to sections 38‑A to 3'8‑I. The rules framed by the Wage Commission were notified also in the official Gazette. No. reasons have been given how the disciplinary rules framed by the Wage Commission are not statutory. In my ‑view the disciplinary rules framed by the Wage Commission are statutory rules and they are applicable only to those Banks and financial institution that have no statutory rules of their own, as has been provided in the Second Wage Commission Award published in the extraordinary Gazette of Pakistan dated 24‑7‑1978. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out anything from the rules of the National Bank which may have provided that where copy of the enquiry report has not been given without demand and second show‑cause notice has not been served, the superstructure of punishment raised on the enquiry falls to the ground and becomes illegal.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the action taken against the appellant by his employer cannot be challenged. The learned lower Court has rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant. There is no force in the appeal, which 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.