ALLAH BUX Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 29‑9‑1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VI Hyderabad, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A , I. R. O.1969.s

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed in the respondent bank as Jamadar Messenger at its Sanjhoro Branch and that he was sanctioned a House Building Loan and it was alleged against him that instead of construction of the house, he obtained the loan on false and bogus bills. He claimed that without issuing a charge‑sheet, one Mr. Abdul Jabbar was appointed as Enquiry Officer prior to 17‑1‑1983, when, actually the charge‑sheet was issued on 16‑3‑1983 very belatedly after lapse of a period of about two months. The appellant claimed that finally on 29‑12‑1983 his services were unlawfully dismissed. So he submitted his grievance petition. He further claimed that he was dismissed from service without either holding an enquiry or affording an opportunity to defend himself.

3. The respondent bank resisted the petition on the ground that the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance 1968 were not applicable to the employment of the appellant as the respondent bank has its own Statutory Rules of 1973 and that the petition of the appellant was time‑barred. Further, the case of the respondent bank was that as the appellant had himself accepted his guilt, therefore, an enquiry was not necessary, thus, his dismissal was proper and the appellant cannot maintain his grievance 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 had passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Salahuddin, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Hi Abbasi, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent bank and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. Mr. Salahuddin, the learned Advocate for the appellant has contended that it is incorrect to state that the appellant had accepted his guilt. He referred to the evidence and the cross‑examination of the appellant before the learned Labour Court and had pointed out thAt nowhere the appellant had accepted his guilt. From the perusal of the evidence of the appellant I find nowhere the appellant had conceded his guilt. The learned Labour Court, in view of this evidence, was wrong to arrive at a conclusion that the appellant had admitted his guilt. What the appellant has stated was that he obtained the loan for the construction of the house and it was to be repaid to the respondent bank installment, under the rules. Obtaining of a loan refundable to the employer is not a misconduct. There is nothing on record to establish that the appellant had not repaid the loan or was trying to runaway from the employment of the bank. The appellant was a poor and low paid employee. He was quite justified to obtain loan for the construction of a shelter for his dependents. I see no reason to believe that the appellant was innocent and cannot be held to have committed any misconduct liable to be dismissed from service. I, therefore, set aside the dismissal order of the appellant and also 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 forthwith, but, only with fifty per cent. (50%) back benefits.

A.E./1042/Lb.S

Appeal allowed.