Find a Lawyer

Application No. 15 of 1984, decided on 14th September, 1985.

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

‑‑‑Ss. 1(4)& 2(i) and S.O. 15(4)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A‑‑National Bank of Pakistan employee‑‑Head Cashier‑ Dismissed from service for misconduct‑‑No statutory rules of service conditions of employees framed‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employees (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applicable‑‑Head Cashier performing manual and clerical duties of writing day book of demand loan, cash book and balancing ledger‑‑A workman‑‑Charge‑sheet time barred as served much after expiry of one month of alleged misconduct coming to notice of management‑‑Enquiry not impartial‑‑Impugned dismissal order, in circumstances, set aside by Labour Court awarding re‑instatement with back benefits.

1985 N L R Services 37 ref. 1983 P L C 468 and 1984 P L C 473 rel.

Muhammad Bashir Awan for Applicant.

Hidayatullah Abbaasi for Respondent.

The applicant was posted as Senior Head Cashier firstly at respondent's Jati Branch. According to him he used to perform manual and clerical duties which included making entries in the Day Books, Cash Books, Balancing of Ledgers, General Correspondence, Documenta tion of loan transactions, bringing cash from link Bank Branch, encashment of cheque from Sub‑Treasury, deposit of cash with linked bank branch, counting of cash, posting of cheques, handling of cases of advance etc.; and so he claims to be covered by the provisions of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and other Labour Laws. He is said to have performed his duties with utmost honesty, integrity and efficiency with the result that due to his vigilance the attempt of two persons of the bank to en cash about Rs.2 lacs through forged documents was foiled. In September, 1980 while he was posted as Senior Head Cashier, one Mr. Qamaruddin was the Bank Manager and the latter was of highly objectionable character because he used to indulge in all sorts of corrupt activities. That Manager surreptitiously removed one bag of golden ornaments of borrower. The applicant and the said Manager were then charge‑sheeted on 7‑5‑1981. After enquiry applicant was dismissed from service by letter, dated 15‑3‑1983; departmental appeal was dismissed on 6‑12‑1983 but this dismissal was also without any personal hearing. Grievance notice was then sent by the applicant on 8‑1‑1984 and thereafter brought this petition on 30‑1‑1984 for his reinstatement with back benefits. His petition is founded on the grounds that the charge‑sheet is time‑barred; the punishment is against the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer and is also not warranted and that the enquiry was fake and against the settled principles of domestic enquiries.

2. The respondent in its reply statement pleaded that the applicant is governed by statutory rules of service framed in 1973 and 1980 and so Standing Orders Ordinance are not applicable to him. Accordingly, he cannot press his grievance in this Court. On merits, it has been pleaded that he had removed the golden bag and thus caused serious damage to the reputation of the Bank. He has made good the loss by depositing the amount of gold and thus he has admitted his guilt. Moreover, as per the enquiry proceedings the charge has been established and so he has rightly been punished.

The applicant examined him alone in support of his case, while the respondent examined Enquiry Officer, Abdul Rasheed, the co‑accused and the then Bank Manager Qamaruddin, and one Mr. Abdullah Chohan, who held preliminary investigations. After evidence, I have heard Mr. Muhammad Bashir Awan, Advocate for the applicant, and Mr. Hidayatullah Abbasi, counsel for the respondent. I have also considered the entire material on record.

4. The first point agitated before me is the non‑applicability of Standing Orders Ordinance. Mr. Abbasi contended that the Bank's employees are governed by its statutory rules of service framed in the year 1973 and so by application of the same, the S.O. Ordinance is not applicable. He has referred to 1985 N L R (Services) 37. However, he submits that though S.O. Ordinance is not applicable this Court would certainly have jurisdiction under the I.R.O., 1969 but while exercising the jurisdiction this Court is to see whether or not any provision of statutory rules has been violated. Mr. Bashir, on the other hand, also relies upon the authority referred to by Mr. Abbasi and submits that according to it the Bank had its statutory rules of 1953 and so the employees of the bank were not regulated by the principles of Master and Servant. However, he submits that this reported case does not state that presently also the bank has its own statutory rules of service. Mr. Bashir submits that in the year 1973 rules were framed with the approval of the appropriate authority but in 1.980 other rules were framed by the Board of Directors of the Bank superseding the statutory rules of 1973. These subsequent rules of 1980 however, had no approval of the Central Government and so these rules lost the sanctity of statutory rules. The position, therefore, which now emerged is that presently there are no statutory rules of service in the respondent‑bank and so its employees are regulated by the provisions of S.O. Ordinance. Learned counsel also placed reliance on 1983 P L C 468 and 1984 P L C 473.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced before me on this legal proposition and I am of the view that the respondent‑bank has no statutory rules of service. The case of Manzoor Hussain referred to by Mr. Abbasi, only stipulates that the bank had drawn its bye‑laws in 1983 under section 32 of National Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1949 and the same had attained the force of statutory rules. It does not speak anything if presently any statutory rules are also available. Admittedly statutory rules were again framed in the year 1973 but in the year 1980 its Board of Directors framed new rules under bye‑laws 18(1)(iii) and (iv) of the National Bank of Pakistan Bye‑Laws, read with section 11(b) of the Banks (Nationalization) Act of 1974. After framing these fresh rules in the year 1980, its employees were being regulated by the provisions of these fresh rules. In other words the rules of 1973 were superseded by the rules of 1980. However, these rules of 1980 admittedly did not receive the approval of the Central Government and so these cannot have the force of statutory rules. In the absence of statutory rules now, the employees of the bank are to be governed only by the provisions of S.O. Ordinance. The submission of Mr. Hidayatullah, is thus, misconceived and is repelled.

6. It has been contended by Mr. Awan that the charge‑sheet was issued to the applicant much after the expiry of one month of the commission of the offence or the disclosure thereof and so the impugned action of the respondent is without jurisdiction. Mr. Abbasi, impliedly conceded submitting that this plea would be available to the applicant when the S.O. Ordinance is made applicable to the respondent‑bank. I have already held above that the bank has no its statutory rules and so S.O. Ordinance are fully applicable to it. This has also been held in a number of reported cases including two Tribunal decisions referred to by Mr. Bashir Awan hereinabove. Since the S.O. Ordinance is applicable, the charge‑sheet is to be served on the worker within one month of the commission of the offence or its disclosure. The management came to know about the missing of the gold bag some time in September/ October, 1980 but the applicant was charge‑sheeted in the month of, May, 1981. Accordingly, the charge‑sheet on which the applicant has been dismissed was issued and served on the applicant much after the expiry of one month and so the impugned order of the management was wholly without jurisdiction. The applicant is, therefore, to succeed on this short ground only.

7. It has been contended that the applicant is not a workman because he was an officer of the bank. The applicant was a Senior Head Cashier and as detailed above, the applicant was performing numerous manual and clerical duties. The respondent also in its reply statement admitted that he used to write day book of demand loan, cash book, balancing of D/L Ledgers. Except a vague suggestion that the applicant was not a workman, the assertion made by the applicant in respect of his duties in his application as well as in his affidavit in evidence was not assailed on behalf of the respondent nor any evidence whatsoever has been led in rebuttal. Besides this, the Hon'ble Tribunal has also held in 1983 P L C 466, that Head Cashier is a workman and so can maintain his petition before the Labour Court. In view of this, I would also repel the submission of Mr. Abbasi that the applicant is not a workman.

8. Reverting to the merits of this case. I find that the enquiry in this case was conducted after more than two years of the charge‑sheet and this delay has not at all been explained on behalf of the respondent. The dismissal was also ordered after three years of the commission of the offence and after two years of the service of charge‑sheet. In addition to this, I find that the Enquiry Officer did not record the evidence of any witnesses but he relied upon some prepared statements of witnesses. The applicant was no doubt called upon to cross‑examine the witnesses but after the prepared statements were apparently brought before the Enquiry Officer. This is not all, but the applicant was cross‑examined in detail by the Enquiry Officer. He similarly cross examined the co‑accused Qamaruddin. He neither summoned the statements recorded by D.W. Abdullah during the preliminary investiga tions nor considered the same particularly when the applicant specifically relied upon the same and further that every witness had made a reference of their previous statement and denied the correctness of the same. In fact, as is indicated from the statement of each witnesses, whose statements were placed before the Enquiry Officer and which were made the basis of his report that previously these witnesses had supported the applicant had to change their version after two years presumably under pressure of the management etc. The Enquiry Officer did not consider the effect of the Auditors Report, dated 10‑3‑1980 and which was also produced by the applicant before the Enquiry Officer. Not only this but I find that the Enquiry Officer did not allow this report of the Audit to be placed alongwith the enquiry papers for his own reasons. Accordingly to this Audit Report, the conduct and efficiency of the applicant had been commended. This all shows that the Enquiry Officer did not act impartially. In this view of the matter, C the action of the management on the report of this Enquiry Officer would not be sustainable.

9. For the foregoing reasons, I accept this petition and direct the applicant to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.

A . E .

Petition 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.