ABDUL JABBAR QURESHI Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 10‑12‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.0.1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to be a Senior Head Cashier and was posted at Yar Branch, Thatta and that he was performing manual and clerical duties. The case of the appellant was that on 15‑12‑1979 he was issued a charge‑sheet to which he replied on 20‑12‑1979 and thereafter he was finally dismissed from service on 24‑7‑1980. He claimed to have filed a departmental appeal on 20‑9‑1980, but, during the pendency of it he preferred a Constitutional Petition on 25‑4‑1982 which was subsequently decided on 26‑5‑1982 by a consent order that the appellant would file another departmental appeal, but, the respondent bank would not raise point of limitation. The appellant claimed that in view of this consent order, he submitted another departmental appeal on 29‑5‑1982 which was, however, rejected by the respondent bank on 19‑9‑1982. Being aggrieved with this action of the respondent bank, the appellant submitted the present grievance petition in which he claimed that not only the alleged charge‑sheet was a nullity in Law, but, his dismissal from service was also without any enquiry.

3. The respondent bank resisted the petition and had submitted that the appellant was not a workman being an Officer of Order III and drawing salary more 'than Rs.800.00 as well as performing supervisory duties, therefore, the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 were not applicable in his case. Further the case of the respondent bank was that after holding necessary domestic enquiry he was dismissed from service and further that the appellant has himself repeatedly pleaded guilty, therefore, he was not entitled to maintain the petition which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Hidayatullah, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent bank and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Advocate for the appellant has argued that the charge‑sheet was issued under the A Staff Rules 1973 whereas in fact it was issued under the repealed Rules of 1953 which was not legally maintainable. He submitted that in a number of authorities, this Tribunal has held that the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 were fully applicable to the employment of the present appellant, therefore, the charge‑sheet should have also been under the Standing Orders Ordinance and thus the domestic enquiry should have also been held in the present case. He pointed out that the alleged enquiry was in the shape of questions & answers only and this procedure is not permissible under the Law. Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Advocate for the appellant further pleaded that from the evidence on record, it cannot be proved that the appellant had committed any misconduct. Lastly it was pleaded by Mr. Awan that the alleged charge‑sheet was also time‑barred, hence, not maintainable in the eyes of Law. On the other hand, I see no force in any of the contentions of Mr. Hidayatullah the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent bank as he has miserably failed to rebut the contentions of Mr. Awan. I, therefore, held that the appellant was a workman under the Standing Orders Ordinance 1968 and that he had not committed any misconduct and that a belated charge‑sheet was issued to him and further that a proper and responsible domestic enquiry was not conducted against him. Therefore, his dismissal from service cannot be sustained. I would, therefore, set aside the impugned order.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I would set aside the impugned order and would allow the present appeal. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits forthwith.

S.Q. /1038/Lb.S

Appeal allowed.