UNITED BANK LIMITED, KARACHI Versus GHULAM MURTAZA

DECISION

This is an appeal against the order dated 15-10-1990 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur whereby the grievance petition filed by the respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.

2. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Khan for the appellants and Mr. S. Tauqir Hassan for the respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case are, that the respondent was working as Clerk/Assistant in the respondent Bank when on 9-10-1983 he was charge-sheeted for misappropriation of the amount of Rs.3,48,279/11 and for committing fraud, making false entries etc. allegedly committed by him w.e.f. August 1982 to 9-6-1983. A domestic enquiry was held against the respondent jointly alongwith about 11 other officers/officials of the Bank. The respondent was found guilty and was dismissed by letter dated 27-5-1985. After serving grievance notice upon the appellant the respondent filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.

4. The main ground on which the learned Labour Court allowed the grievance petition was that the charge-sheet was time-barred. It is not disputed that the respondent was workman. The Bank Staff Rules framed by the bank under the Wage Board Award have been held not to be statutory rules and as such the case of the respondent would be governed by the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 hereinafter called the Ordinance. Standing Order 15(4) provides as under:-

"(4) No order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct within one month of the date of such misconduct or of the date on which the alleged misconduct comes to the notice of the employer and is given an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him. The approval of the employer shall be required in every case of dismissal and, the employer shall institute independent inquiries before dealing with charges against a workman:"

It is mandatory provision that the act of misconduct had to be brought by the employer to the knowledge of the workman within one month from the date of commission of offence or from the date the act of misconduct came to the knowledge of the employer, viz. the appellant. The charge-sheet Annexure- A to the grievance petition clearly shows that the act of misconduct was alleged to have been committed from August 1982 to 9-6-1983. Therefore the charge- sheet dated 9-10-1983 would be obviously beyond period of one month from the date of commission of offence.

5. It was contended by Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Khan that the charge -sheet was within one month from the date when the offence came to the knowledge of the bank. This charge-sheet itself refers to earlier charge-sheets dated 21-6-1983, 25-6-1983 and 16-7-1983. Thus the fact that the act of misconduct viz. misappropriation or fraud did come to the knowledge of the employer before issuance of the first charge-sheet of 21-6-1983 cannot be disputed. In the first charge-sheet dated 21-6-1983, which is at page 379 of the R&P of Labour Court, the respondent was charged with having committed misappropriation/fraud in Bills/Remittance Department and was also, absconding from duty since 11-6-1983. In the charge-sheet dated 25-6-1983, which is at page 407 of the R&P of the lower Court, the respondent was charged that it was discovered on 20-6-1983 that he had been sending in collection the Bills/Cheques/DDS/FDS to concerned branches of UBL and other scheduled banks to receive fate thereof but on receipt of fate of the collection, he did not arrange to pay/credit to the respective Accounts/ Beneficiaries/Branches and therefore committed fraud/embezzlement/ criminal misappropriation/criminal breach of trust. In the charge-sheet dated 16-7-1983 reference is made to charge-sheet dated 25-6-1983 and appellant was asked to give explanation within 3 days from the date of receipt of the letter. The misconduct allegedly committed by the appellant is alleged to be fraud, misappropriation, embezzlement etc. with regard to bank's money. The act of misconduct would be complete whether the amount of misappropriation was Rs.5 or Rs.5,00,000. The contention of Mr. Sadiq Khan that fresh charge-sheet was, given on 9-10-1983 after collecting full details of the total amount of misappropriation would not alter the fact that act of misconduct viz. misappropriation or fraud had come to the knowledge of the appellant Bank at least on 20-6-1983 as mentioned in the charge-sheet dated 25-6-1983. The charge-sheet dated 9-10-1983 was beyond the period mentioned in the Standing Order 15(4) of the Ordinance.

6. Admittedly the enquiry was not held on the earlier charge-sheets but was held on the charge-sheet-dated 9-10-1983. Therefore any proceedings taken under or order passed on the basis of such enquiry under this charge -sheet, would not be sustainable and has been rightly set aside by the learned Labour Court. Furthermore I find, that enquiry was held jointly with other officers of the bank. It is not disputed that respondent was workman. The enquiry had to be held against him under the provisions of Ordinance. However other officers proceeded against alongwith the respondent belongs to officer class and it is not known, whether they were workmen or not Proceedings against them therefore would have been token under the Bank Staff Rules. In such joint proceedings the respondent as a workman would naturally be prejudiced.

7. In view of my finding that the charge-sheet was time-barred and the order of dismissal was rightly set aside by the learned Labour Court, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. Order of Labour Court to be implemented within one month of this Decision.

H.B.T./1994/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.