Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑399 of 1983, decided on 26th September, 1983.

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

‑‑S. 1(4) and S. O. 15(4) and First Wage Commission Award, 1975 Bank employees‑Governed by West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 prior to corning in force of First Wage Commission Award, 1975 ‑Absence of three days‑Would not amount to misconduct.

Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 14th September, 1983.

The decision dated 16th June, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala has been, in this appeal, challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits. Earlier the same matter bad come before me on the point of limitation and it. was held that the grievance notice and the grievance petition were within time.

2. The allegations as contained in the charge‑sheet Exh. P‑1 were that the respondent had remained absent from 9th June, 1966 to 11th June, 1966 that his work was unsatisfactory, that his behaviour towards customers and audit party at Malikwal was objectionable and that at Lalamusa, he did not deliver complete charge to his successor on transfer. Although there were many allegations but the services of the respondent were terminated for absence only on 12th February, 1969. First Wage Commission Award came in 1975, so in 1969 to all the banks Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was applicable. According to Standing Order 15 (3), absence for more than ten days is misconduct, whereas the respondent A is alleged to have remained absent from 9th June, 1966 to 11th June, 1966 for three days only. So no misconduct was committed by the respondent, therefore, punishment of termination was not warranted by law.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the employer is not in existence, so the order of re‑instatement is futile. Firstly, this plea does not appear to have been taken before the learned lower Court and secondly this is wrong that at present no employer exists. The successor of the bank namely the Punjab Provincial Co‑operative Bank is the employer, vide Notification No. SOJ & D‑1‑5/74 (P‑11), dated 27th November, 1976 the assets and liabilities of dissolved banks and the employees were transferred to the appellant bank. Since the appellant took over the liabilities also, so it has to implement the order of the learned lower Court and this Court and it is fallacious to say that there is no employer.

4. As a result of what has been said above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same in limfne.

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.