UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHI Versus ASHFAQ AHMAD BAJWA
The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated 15‑1‑1985 recorded . by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore whereby Ashfaq Ahmad Bajwa (hereinafter called as the respondent) was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. United Bank Limited (hereinafter described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of reinstatement, whereas the respondent has in his appeal claimed back benefits. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2.A miscellaneous application has been made by the respondent to the effect that the appeal of the appellant is no proper appeal as it is signed and brought by unauthorised persons. The grievance petition was against United Bank Limited through President, Karachi, Circle Chief, Lahore and Zonal Head, Lahore and same are the appellants in the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the signatures appearing on the memo of appeal are not of the persons who had been sued in the learned Lower Court. He also argues that this is a legal point and can be raised at this stage. I am afraid this is not a purely legal point but is a mixed question of fact and law. Only by evidence it could be proved that A the signatures appearing on the memo of appeal are of the competent persons or not. Since the respondent has also brought an appeal, therefore, such a point could be taken in the said appeal and not by means of a miscellaneous application at a later stage. Both the appeals were presented on 18‑2‑1985. Learned counsel for the respondent had put in appearance in the appeal of the Bank on 13‑3‑1985 and thus had come to know who had signed the memo of appeal, but the miscellaneous application was brought on 17‑3‑1986, after about a year. During this period the respondent could very well pray for the amendment of the grounds of appeal in order to include the plea made in the miscellaneous application. Again only by evidence it can be resolved whether the signatures appearing on the appeal of the Bank are of competent persons or not and no application has been given for permission to produce evidence, nor has it been suggested what kind of evidence the respondent wishes to produce. The objection, therefore, is overruled.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited 1985 P L C 1053 and has argued that as held by the Division Bench of Lahore High Court, bank employees who have been removed from service cease to remain workmen and that the wage commission award not being an award as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to say anything against this argument. I have already followed the above‑mentioned ruling and have held that the C Labour Courts have no jurisdiction. Since the orders passed by the Labour Courts and this Tribunal are subject to writ jurisdiction of Lahore High Court, therefore, the rulings of the said Court are to be followed in order to avoid remand orders.
4. So far as merits of the case are concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants has made reference to Ex.R‑2 which is reply to the charge sheet and statement of the respondent Ex.R‑3. In reply Ex.R‑2 and statement Ex.R‑3 the respondent admitted the commission of the guilt and prayed for taking a lenient view. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that since the bank itself did not rely upon the confessional statement and held the inquiry, therefore, the reply to the charge‑sheet and the confessional statement Ex.R‑3 are not to be considered. He has also said that no confession was made. In view of what was admitted by the respondent in reply to the charge‑sheet, there was no necessity of holding inquiry and it appears that remaining on the safe side inquiry was held. If there is any evidence of admission made before the issuance of the charge‑sheet, it may be said that some influence may have been used to get the confession but when an employee is charge‑sheeted, he realises that the employer does not want to spare him and wishes to take action, therefore, the admission made in answer to the charge‑sheet cannot be ignored.
5. So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that since in the written statement no objection was taken that Labour Courts have no jurisdiction, therefore, benefit of 1985 P L C 1053 cannot be derived by the appellant. Written statement was filed on 14‑4‑1984 much before the ruling cited above came in the field. It was, therefore, not possible for the appellant to make such an objection in the written statement.
6. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal of the respondent is dismissed and appeal of the appellants is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respondent is directed to be returned for presentation to the proper forum.
A.E/114/Lb.P Orders accordingly.