EXECUTIVE BOARD, UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHI Versus GHULAM NABI

By the impugned decision dated 14‑2‑1990 the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, reinstated the respondent in his job which has aggrieved the appellants and hence the said judgment has been impugned in. this appeal.

2. The facts which can be amassed from the record of the case are that the respondent was employed on 23‑2‑1973 as Credit Officer Grade‑II in the appellant‑Bank. The respondent was served with a charge‑sheet on 8‑7‑1984 Exh. PW‑1/6 on the file wherein he was held responsible for concealing the true position and correct antecedents of the borrowers and dishonest investigation of the claim of the applicant‑loaners with a view to helping them to obtain the loan without legal right. The respondent in his reply exonerated himself of the charge and dubbed it as baseless. However, in the domestic enquiry conducted to verify the charge‑sheet the respondent was held guilty and consequently by the impugned order was dismissed from service. The appellant in the written statement justified the dismissal order on legal as well as factual grounds. During the trial of the case the respondent appeared as PW‑1 and deposed about his being a workman and also made statement in support of the contents of his grievance petition. On the other hand the appellant examined Haseebur Rehman as RW‑1 who supported the stance of the respondent. On consideration of this evidence the Labour Court declared the respondent as workman, held the grievance petition within time and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance and, therefore, his dismissal order was violative of the mandatory provisions of the said law.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants first took me to the various documents exhibited on record in order to apprise me of the factual position of the case. Thereafter, he contended that the appellant was not a workman and that the finding of the lower Court on this point was erroneous. The learned Advocate of the respondent argued in support of the finding of the Labour Court. The perusal of the grievance petition reveals that the petitioner respondent has given details of the job performed by him during his employment. In his Court statement he also explained his status as a workman and brought on record various documents through which he can be designated a worker. Exh. FW‑1/1 and Exh. PW‑1/2 are the forms of applications which were to be filled by the respondent at the behest of the grower? applicants. In this form the respondent was required to enter the various particulars of the applicants and then to submit it to the Bank Manager for his action and onward transmission to the higher authority for sanction. Exh. PW?1/3 is the instructions to simplify the loaning procedure. The following paragraph out of the said instructions would give clue to the duties which were performed by the respondent in this process:‑‑

"The Branch Manager on examining the loan request in the light of Agriculture Credit Officer investigation report, will assess the credit and genuinely justified credit needs of the applicant and recommend a loan limit proposal to the Zonal Office/Circle Office of the amount so assessed or 80% of the value of the land.?

It is thus apparent from these documentary proofs that the respondent was to perform merely clerical duties, as he was required to fill up the prescribed forms and to verify the antecedents of the applicants and then submit it to the Bank Manager. The respondent was not a sanctioning authority nor he had any say in the grant of the loan. Moreover, it is not proved on record that the respondent had some executive or managerial functions to perform or that he had any effective say in the matter or had any subordinate under him or had to perform any sort of supervisory duty. No flaw either factual or legal was pointed out to justify interference in the finding of the lower Court on this point and accordingly no interference is called for. It was next contended that the grievance petition was time‑barred as the petitioner was dismissed from service on 7‑9‑1986 while grievance petition was filed on 2‑8‑1988. The learned counsel was, however, unable to controvert the factual aspect enabling the lower Court to hold the grievance petition within time. It is proved on record that the respondent has never been negligent and after exhausting the final remedy available to him submitted the grievance petition within time of the last order of the competent authority in the matter. It was next submitted that even if the respondent is held to be a workman even then he was not entitled to be restored in his job as he has been held guilty of the charge by the enquiry officer. It was, however, conceded that the respondent was proceeded against under the United Bank Staff Rules and not under the Standing Orders Ordinance. The provisions of the latter law would apply to the respondent, as the Staff Rules are not statutory rules to be adopted. In this view of the matter as the mandatory provisions of law applicable to the facts and circumstances have not been fulfilled, therefore, the order of dismissal was not tenable. The learned trial Court has not erred in declaring the dismissal order as void on this count without entering into the merits of the charges. I have not been persuaded to differ with the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order and accordingly dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs. ????

H.B.T./153/Lb.N ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.