Find a Lawyer

(a) Industrial dispute‑---

‑‑‑ Misconduct‑ Negligence and neglect of duty‑Back employee Bound to follow instructions‑Plea that instructions not being followed‑No proper defence‑Non‑compliance with instructions, held, amounted to misconduct of negligence and neglect of duty.

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

-----‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Grievence petition against dismissal from service for misconduct‑Bank employee's case‑Dismissal order not passed by competent authority‑Charge established‑Re‑instate ment without back benefits awarded by Labour Court, in circum stances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

Irshad Ali Mian for Appellant.

Asghar Khadim for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 19th February, 1984.

The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 13th March, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to be re instated in service without back benefits. The respondent has brought cross‑objections for claiming back benefits. This judgment will dispose of the appeal and the cross‑objections together.

2. The allegations for which the respondent was dismissed from service were that a demand draft for rupees two lacs had been presented by Qamar Din by hand issued by Peshawar Branch and the respondent verified the signatures of the officer by comparing the same with the specimen signatures that came from Peshawar alongwith the draft, without waiting for the telegram in code from Peshawar Branch and without comparing the above signatures with the specimen signatures contained in I.B.S. book maintained in the bank posses (sic), that he got two signatures of Qamar Din on the back of the draft and verified the same, whereas the signatures on the D. D. advice and the draft differ. The learned lower Court accepted the grievance petition only on the ground that the dismissal order, was passed by an incompetent authority. According to the learned lower Court, only the President was competent.

3. The plea taken by the respondent was that the practice of waiting for the confirmatory telegrams was pot existing in those days. This is wrong. Circular letter relevant to the point is H.O./130/P.I. It is dated 5th July, 1962 whereas the draft was honoured in July, 1980. So, the in structions in this respect were in force, It is also argued that this in struction was not being followed. This is no defence. If an officer fails to follow an instruction, be takes the risk. Since the demand draft had not come by post but was brought by hand, it was all the more necessary to wait for the telegram. In view of the heavy value of the draft, it was' further incumbent upon the respondent to exercise special care and follow the instructions strictly at least in such a case. He was thus guilty of gross negligence and neglect of duty, which amounted to serious misconduct.

4. Now it is to be seen if the charge‑sheet was given and dismissal order passed by the competent authority According to para. 258 (4) of the Wage Commission Award. charge‑sheet is to be given and dismissal order is to be passed by competent authority. The term competent authority' is not defined. No rules that may be prevailing at the relevant time have been cited to show that the authority that gave the charge‑sheet and passed the dismissal order was competent. In the absence of rules competent authority will be the one who appointed the respondent. There is no evidence as to who is the appointing authority. The case of the respondent is that the President is competent. A letter of Senior Vice‑President, Head Office, Karachi is sought to be produced in addi tional evidence at the appellate stage. But it has not been shown if in reality the said authority was competent. The document, therefore, is not germane to the case. R.W. 1 has not said who is the competent authority so the statement of the respondent that only the President is competent stands unrebutted. Thus, in the absence of rules and cogent evidence, the learned lower Court was justified in relying upon the statement of the respondent in this respect. Learned counsel for the appellant has brought Staff Service Rules but they are of 1981, whereas the misconduct took place in July, 1980 so they are not relevant.

5. The respondent has claimed back benefits in cross‑objections. Since he has been found guilty of gross negligence and succeeded only on a technical ground that he was dismissed by an incompetent authority, he was rightly not allowed back benefits.

6. As a result, the appeal as well as the cross‑objections are dismissed.

A. E. Cross‑objection 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.