Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. MN‑512 of 1983, decided on 17th December, 1984.

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Grievance petition against dismissal‑Petitioner whether or not a "workman"‑Status determinable with reference to nature of duties at time of impugned order‑Petitioner a Bank employee‑‑Statement of duties produced before Labour Court relating to period to which alleged misconduct pertained and not to that period and time when impugned order passed‑Status disputed Order of Labour Court accepting grievance petition, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded to Labour Court for re‑decision after opportunity of evidence to parties regarding duties of employee at time impugned order passed.

Sit. Nazir Ahmad for Appellant.

Ch. Nazir Hussain for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 9th December, 1984,

The decision, dated 31st July, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits.

2. The allegation against the respondent was that he made advances of loans beyond the advance limit and did not adjust the same and in this way caused loss to the Bank. It was contended by the appellant that the respondent was not a workman. The respondent admitted in cross‑examina tion that five employees were under him but he had no power of hire or fire or even to grant leave to them. The duties stated in evidence are those which were being performed by the respondent when he was Manager, Shujabad and had made un-authorised advances. Cause of grievance arose to the respondent when he was dismissed. So it is to be seen whether he was covered by the definition of workman when he was dismissed. When an employee is punished, he has to consider what is the forum for him to'', challenge the order of dismissal. If at that time his duties were such that he is not covered by the definition of workman, he has to challenge the dismissal order in a Civil Court by claiming damages. If, according to him, duties performed at the time of dismissal are that of a workman, he is entitled to come to a Labour Court. Since the parties did not lead any evidence about the duties of the respondent at the time he was punished, it is not possible to decide if he was a workman or not. The case, therefore, is liable to be remanded.

3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned/ decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for re-decision after affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the point b duties of the respondent at the time he was dismissed. The parties will be at liberty to produce more evidence if they so like, on the other points as well.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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