Find a Lawyer

Application No. 125 of 1982, decided on 23rd August, 1983.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--‑‑

--‑‑Ss. 2 (xxviii) & 25‑A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2 (i)‑"Workman"‑Maintainability of grievance petition before Labour Court‑‑Bank Officer Grade 11 working as Branch Manager holding power of Attorney on behalf of Bank and many persons working under him‑Not ‑a workman‑Grievance petition against order of removal from service of such employee of Bank not maintainable.

Syed Amanullah Al‑Qadri for Applicant.

Iqbal Habib for Respondent.

This application under section 25‑A of the I. R. O., 1969 has been filed by the applicant for his re‑instatement in service with full back benefits.

The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant served the Respondent Bank from 3rd July, 1967 to 15th May, 1980. The applicant tendered resignation on 16th May, 1980 and joined Bank of Oman Limited at Khartoum (Sudan) and worked there till 8th March, 1982. The applicant came back to Pakistan on account of the death of his father. The applicant, on his coming to Pakistan learnt that his resignation has not been accepted by the Respondent and he made application to the respondent to allow him to rejoin the Respondent Bank.

It is submitted that the respondent vide letter dated 1st April, 1981 allowed the applicant to rejoin the respondent treating his absence from 16th May, 1980 to the date of his report to work as leave without pay and not counting towards service. The applicant reported for duty to Senior Vice‑President, Faisalabad on 2nd May, 1981 and the applicant was posted at Circle Office, Faisalabad. On 12th September, 1981 the applicant reported for duty to E. V. P. Personnel Division, Head Office, Karachi where the respondent started harassing the applicant by issuing him a pre‑dated notice on 13th September, 1981 asking him to produce release certificate from the Bank of Oman Limited. This certificate was not necessary as the intervening period from 16th May, 1980 to 2nd May, 1981 had been treated as leave without pay. The applicant was on leave from 23rd November, 1981 to 29th November, 1981 a letter dated 24th November, 1981 was issued by the respondent. The applicant was being harassed on the ground that the certificate from the Bank of Oman Limited is not acceptable. The applicant was not given salary and was stopped by the order of personnel Division. The applicant tried his best to get a certificate from the Bank of Oman but could not get the required certificate. The applicant was illegally stopped from signing the register. The applicant made application for leave from 28th December, 1981 to 7th January, 1982 as he had to attend the marriage of his sister at Lahore, The applicant was not given any reply on account of anxiety. The applicant fell ill and sent telegram from Lahore to extend leave from 8th January, 1982 to 13th January, 1982.

It is also alleged that on 14th January, 1982 the applicant submitted his joining report alongwith medical certificate but the applicant was illegally stopped from performing his duties. The applicant came back to Karachi on 14th March, 1982 to enquire about his job where he received letter dated 18th February, 1982 from the Respondent Bank. The applicant submitted his explanation. The applicant was not allowed duties and ulti mately he was removed from service by a letter dated 10th April, 1982. The applicant sent grievance notice dated 27th June, 1982 but his grievance was not redressed hence this application.

The respondent was served and filed the reply statement. It is alleged that the grievance petition is not maintainable as the applicant was never employed as workman, in the Respondent Establishment and as such the Standing Orders Ordinance as well as 1. R. O., 1969 are not applicable in the present case. The applicant remained absent without leave and on account of his continued unauthorised absence on one pretext or the other. The applicant deliberately remained absent. The applicant did not produce the proper release certificate from the Bank of Oman Limited, and in spite of the repeated demands the applicant was avoiding to produce the same. The applicant himself had undertaken to produce the release certificate from the Bank of Oman Limited. On the basis of which he was allowed to rejoin the Bank. The applicant absented himself from duty without authority firstly on the ground that his sister was going to be married at Lahore thereafter on grounds of illness which were not acceptable to the respondent. The applicant was not paid salary on the basis of "no work no pay".

It is also submitted that the release of salary to the applicant was not justified in view of his unauthorised absence. It is denied that the applicant served the Respondent Bank during his alleged period of absence. The applicant never intended to resume duties. The termination order is legal and proper.

The applicant filed his affidavit‑in‑evidence and he was cross‑examined. Respondent filed the affidavit‑in‑evidence of Mr. Akbar Sultan and he was also cross‑examined.

I have heard the .learned Advocates of the parties and perused the record. The learned Advocate for the respondent has contended that the applicant was working as Grade‑11 Officer and is not workman under the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 as well as I. R. O., 1969. The applicant himself has admitted that he was appointed as Officer Grade‑11. The applicant was working as Manager in various branches of the Respondent Bank till his resignation. Many persons were working under the applicant when applicant was working as Manager. The applicant resigned and joined the Bank of Oman where he was appointed in the same Grade‑11 Officer. Again the applicant joined the Respondent Bank and his service was continued and he was taken in the same capacity as Officer Grade‑I1. The applicant has also admitted in the cross‑examina tion that he was holding the power of Attorney on behalf of the A Respondent Bank which he was produced as Exh. 3/A. The duties performed by the applicant and the persons working under him as the applicant was Manager and Officer Grade‑11 clearly shows that the applicant is not work man under the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 as well a I. R. O , 1969 and as such this application is not maintainable in law.

So far as the merits of the case are concerned, it is an admitted fact that the applicant had to produce the clearance certificate from the Bank of Oman Limited and the applicant failed to do so. There were arrears of the Bank of Oman against the applicant and this fact has been admitted by the applicant himself. The arrears were not cleared off by the applicant and he has also admitted this and hence he was not issued clearance certificate for want of arrears from the Bank of Oman Limited. The applicant himself absented from duty unauthorisedly and without any sanction of leave. The applicant himself made responsible for the termination of service from the Respondent Bank. The termination order appeared proper and legal.

In view of my above discussions I am satisfied that the present applica tion is not maintainable in Law as the applicant is not workman under the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 as well as I. R. O , 1969. The termination order is also proper. I, therefore, dismiss this application.

A. B. 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.