Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. JM-609 of 1984, decided on 3rd March, 1986.

--- Dismissal for misconduct--Multiple charges- Enquiry held into some of the charges--Dismissal order passed on basis of all charges including those not dealt with in enquiry, held, would not be sustainable.

---Ss. 2 (xxviii), 25-A, 38(3) a 38-D--Wage Commission Award--Bank employees--Jurisdiction of Labour Court--Employee dismissed from service due to misconduct--Held: a person removed from service would cease to 'remain a "workman's as defined in S. 2(xxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969--Such employee could not seek relief under S. 25-A before Labour Court--Infringement of any right guaranteed by Wage Commission Award--Remedy for--Proper forum would be National Industrial Relations Commission and not Labour Court.

1985 P L C 1053 rel.

---Ss. 25-A, 36 a 38(3)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Labour Courts and Appellate Tribunal in Punjab, held, are subject to writ jurisdiction of Lahore High Court--Dictums laid down by Lahore High Court, held, to be followed by Appellate Tribunal and Labour Court.

Muhammad Bilal for Appellant.

M.K. Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 25th February, 1986.

The above captioned two appeals arise frond the decision, dated 18-9-1984, whereby the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi directed Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) to re-instate Naseem Khan Sherwani (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) in service without back benefits. The appellant has in its appeal challenged the direction of re-instatement, whereas the respondent has in his appeal claimed back benefits. Since both the appeals arise from the same impugned decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The respondent was a cashier. Four charge sheets were given to him which are Exhs. P. 5 to P. 8. The respondent was dismissed on two charge-sheets Exhs. P. 5 and P. 7, but evidence during the inquiry was produced in respect of the allegations contained in charge sheet Exh. P.7 only. The allegations were that on 20-6-1981 the respondent had received Rs.25 as commission but credited Rs.15 in the bank account and misappropriated the remaining amount, and that on 26-6-1981 he had received Rs.11.30 as commission but deposited only Rs.3 and thus misappropriated the remaining amount. No second show cause notice was given to the respondent after the conclusion of the inquiry in respect of the charges contained in charge-sheet Exh. P. 5 and this is another reason for which the punishment awarded on the -said charge-sheet was not maintainable. It is evident from charge-sheet Exh. P.1 that dismissal order was passed on the charges contained in charge-sheet Exh. P.5 and Exh. P.7 both. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in reality inquiry was made in respect of charge-sheet Exh. P. 7 and if by mistake in the dismissal order the allegation made in charge-sheet Exh. P.5 was also considered, it did not make any difference. The argument is not acceptable. The punishing authority was prejudiced by considering that the allegations made in the charge-sheet Exh. P.5 had also been proved and inquiry had been field with regard to the allegations made therein. If he had found that only the charges contained in charge-sheet Exh. P.7 had been established, the possibility cannot be excluded that any other kind of punishment short of dismissal may have been prescribed. The other defect for which the punishment awarded was not maintainable is that no opportunity of cross-examination and production of defence was afforded to the respondent. The proceedings show that there is no note either that opportunity was given or that the respondent had refused to cross-examine the witnesses and to produce evidence in defence. The learned lower Court, therefore, rightly held that the punishment awarded to the respondent was not maintainable.

3. But the appeal of the appellant succeeds on the point on jurisdiction. It has been held by the Lahore High Court in 1985 P L CI 1053 that persons removed from service cease to remain workmen as the term is defined in section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and thus cannot go to the Labour Court for getting relief. It has also been held by the High Court that for the infringement of any right guaranteed by the Wage Commission Award the employee can seek remedy before the N.I.R.C. and not the Labour Court. Since this Tribunal and the Labour Courts in Punjab are subject to writ jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, the dictums laid down by the said Court are to be followed.

4. I, therefore, following the abovementioned ruling, hold that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. The appeal of the appellant, therefore, is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court,, the grievance petition is directed to be returned to the respondent for presentation to the proper forum. The appeal of the respondent for back benefits fails since he did not assert in his statement that after his dismissal from service he remained jobless. Even otherwise since the very direction of re-instatement has been set aside, so question of allowing back benefits to the respondent arises and thus this appeal is dismissed.

A.E. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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