Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeals Nos. LHR‑233 and 224 of 1984, decided on 25th November, 1984.
‑‑---Misconduct‑Bank employees‑Negligence and in efficiency Amount to misconduct Wage Commission Award (First), para. 258 (2).
‑‑-Bank employee‑Disciplinary action for misconduct‑Second show‑cause notice‑ Mandatory ‑ Punishment awarded without second show‑cause notice ‑ Not sustainable‑Technical defect‑---Grievance petition against dismissal succeeding on grounds of failure to serve second show‑cause notice ‑ Petitioner, held, rightly disallowed back benefits‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑Wage Commission Award (First), para. 258 (5).
M. S. Bokhari for Appellant.
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing : 20th November, 1984.
The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 19th March, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore, directing the re‑instatement of Muhammad Marghoob Usmani (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) in service without back benefits. The respondent has in his appeal claimed back benefits, whereas United Bank Limited (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has in its appeal challenged the direction of re‑instatement. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The respondent was a Cashier. The allegation for which he was dismissed from service was that he had been paying the amounts of cheques that did neither bear the signatures of the drawer nor of the presenter of cheques. The learned lower Court has held that no mis appropriation was proved and the respondent was guilty of negligence and working inefficiently. Banks' cases are different from the ones to which Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies. According to para. 258(2) of the first Wage Commission Award, displaying of negligence and inefficiency too amount to misconduct. So the allegation was of misconduct. However since second show‑cause notice was not given which is a mandatory provision of para. 258(5), the punishment awarded to the respondent was B not sustainable and was rightly set aside. The respondent is not entitled to back benefits since he in reality has succeeded on a technical point which is that second show‑cause notice was not given.
3. As a result, both the appeals are‑dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer