Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. SG‑51 of 1984, decided on 29th July, 1984.

‑‑Ss. 2 (xxviii), 25-A & 38 (3)‑"Workman';--‑Whether or not ad employee a workman‑Power of hire and fire ‑ Not the only criteria to determine such point‑Bank employee Grade‑1I Officer Working as Branch Manager seeking redress against demotion on account of misconduct‑No evidence lead by parties whether peti tioner was a workman‑Order of Labour Court accepting grievance petition, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for re‑decision after opportunity of evidence to parties.

M. S. Bukhari for Appellants.

H. R. Haider for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 27th July, 1984.

The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 5th January, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5 Faisalabad accepting the grievance petition of the respondent without passing any order as to back benefits.

2. The respondent was Officer Grade‑11 working as Manager in branch Chak No. 44/NB. He was charge‑sheeted and an enquiry was held which culminated in his demotion. The charges were as under: ‑

(1) That on 12th September, 1981 a cheque bearing No. C‑03/006913 for Rs. 4.00 lacs of Messrs Millat Dal Factory (C D A/c No. 43) was found lying in the cash. The said cheque was kept by you just to inflate the deposit position of your branch as the same was not cancelled and posted in the relevant account of the party.

(2) That you purchased a scooter No. LEU‑2224 with the amount of scooter/Motor Cycle Loan of Rs. 10,000 from the bank. The said scooter was registered by you in the joint names of the bank and yourself but later on you got removed bank's name from the registration on 29th May, 1979 unauthorisedly without getting the loan adjusted. However, when the inspectors pointed out this irregularity, you got the scooter registered in joint names of the bank and yourself. You have un-authorisedly drawn con veyance allowance Rs. 50 per month from, 1st June, 1979 to 5th October, 1981 (3rd November, 1981).

(3) That you allowed excess over limit on the following dates to Messrs Hameed Brothers without obtaining prior approval from Z. O/H.O.

(4) That you credited C D Account No. 38 of Messrs Shahid Dal Factory by debiting C D Account No. 193 of Awami Dal Factory with Rs. 9,985 on 21st January, 1982 unauthorisedly.

(5) That you debited H. O. Accounts of the following branches without receiving I.B.C. As. from them regarding O. B. Cs. paid.

(6) That in spite of repeated instructions from Zonal Office to curtail telephone expenses, the amount on monthly bills in respect of branch telephone has increased considerably in the month of July to November, 1981 and January, 1982. Hence, you failed to exercise proper control even telephone as is evident from the following data. The recovery made by you from the parties is not satisfactory :‑

3. The Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of charge Nos.1, 2 and 6 only. The parties did not lead any evidence on the point of workman. The respondent did not say even a single word about it. So is the case with the evidence produced by the appellant. However, power of hire and fire is not the only criteria to decide the point of workman. Since there is no evidence I am not in a position to express final opinion.

4. As 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 last opportunity to the parties to produce evidence on the whole case including the point of workman.

A. E.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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