ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI Versus ABDUL SATTAR TALPUR
DECISION
This appeal has arisen in the following circumstances
2. The respondent was working with the Allied Bank as an Accountant. On 23‑4‑1987 he was charge‑sheeted as under:‑‑
"(1) That without having any approved target of the Agri. Finance, you have disbursed finance in-discriminally by putting your signature on vouchers to the tune of Rs.1,184,000 and financing has been allowed to in genuine growers in your recommendations as Mr. Nasim Kazim was not knowing any body, and you being local man instigated him to allow the financing.
(2) That the finances disbursed to the growers are without completing the required formalities/documents and authentication of genuine growers.
(3) That while Mr. Nasim Kazim was transferred from Badin Branch and the relieved Manager Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed Memon was taking charge, on the last day of departure of Mr. Nasim Kazim finance of Rs.1,80,000 was disbursed with your joint signatures.
(4) That all the finances allowed/disbursed under your joint signatures are not stagnant and the growers/borrowers and their guarantors are also not traceable which clearly shows that the finances were made to the ingenuine growers with mala fide intention and otherwise the bank amount of Rs.1,184,000 is rather misappropriated by you in collaboration with Mr. Nasim Kazim:"
3. The respondent replied to the same, repudiating the allegations levelled against him. The reply having been found to be unsatisfactory, an enquiry ‑ was ordered wherein Mumtaz Ahmed Khan the incoming Manager of the Allied Bank, Badin Branch was examined alongwith the respondent. Abdul Ghaffar Khan the Enquiry Officer had recommended disciplinary action and the respondent was dismissed from service on 13‑3‑1988.
4. His appeal before the prescribed authority dated 24‑3‑1988, having been rejected on 10‑9‑1988 the respondent, sent a grievance notice and backed it up by a petition before the Labour Court.
5. The respondent in his petition professed his innocence while in the Written Reply the territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court was challenged apart from two other contentions, viz. that the respondent was not a workman and the grievance notice was belated.
6. The respondent was his own witness and Abdul Ghani Khan the successor in office of Nasim Kazim appeared on behalf of the management.
7. The Labour Court repelled all the contentions raised on behalf of the Management and allowed the petition.
8. The objection in regard to the grievance notice being barred by limitation was not pressed before me and very properly, because the rejection letter in regard i o the appeal itself is dated 10‑9‑1988 and the grievance notice had been submitted before the end of the month of September.
9. As for the territorial jurisdiction it was alleged that the Head Office of the Bank was situated at Lahore, that the respondent at the time of his dismissal was working at the Thatta Branch which fell under the jurisdiction of a different Labour Court, and the enquiry against him was started when he was in Badin. Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Khan learned counsel for the respondent however contended that the Central Office of the Bank was located at Karachi, and the appointment letter filed by the respondent himself at a later stage and not subjected to any challenge worth the name, was issued from the Central Office at Karachi. The confirmation was again from there. The promotion and the dismissal order, the departmental appeal and the rejection thereof were all from Karachi. There can be no manner of doubt under the circumstances, that the concurrent jurisdiction would vest with the Karachi Court and the contention was very properly overruled.
10. The respondent in the grievance petition had specified his duties and also stressed that he had no power, managerial or supervisory in nature. Nor was he controlling any action of the Bank establishment. He had also not been empowered to pass any administrative order of appointment, termination or promotion etc. He also had no financial powers or the authority to sanction loans. The fact that he was an officer of Grade‑III and covered under the Pay Committee report, looking to the nature of duties would be neither here nor there. All the more, in view of the fact that there was no power of attorney forthcoming on the record at all. All that had been done was to produce a specimen copy of the power of attorney sons the signatures of the executants, the witnesses, or of the Bank's President. No weight can therefore be attached to it at all, because it was for the Bank authorities to substantiate their assertions, in view of the specific denial of its existence in the petition. It is nobody's 'case that he had any controlling power of any sort whatsoever. I agree with the finding of the Labour Court that the appellant was a workman.
11. All that has been said about the alleged fraud perpetuated by the respondent is that he alongwith the Branch Manager had disbursed finances to the extent of Rs.1,80,000 on the day the latter had handed over the charge. There is no trace of the borrowers or their guarantors, and there is no recovery. It was further averred that he was a co‑signatory with the Manager here also as in regard to the disbursement of other agricultural finances to the extent of Rs.11,74,000.
12. All that has been said to drive the guilt home against the respondent was that he was a co‑signatory of the debit vouchers which have been produced on the record and the documents in regard to the solvency of the guarantors or the identity of the borrowers had not been properly investigated.
13. There is not a shred of evidence, verbal or documentary, on the record to show, that the scrutiny of the documents in regard to the solvency of the guarantors or subjective satisfaction of their identity was even remotely the responsibility of the respondent.
14. The circular dealing with the alleged grant/sanction of agricultural production loans/finances has been duly brought on the record. Under the said circular it was the sole responsibility of the Branch Managers who were given discretionary powers for the sanction of agricultural input loans upto Rs.6,000 per person, which was later on enhanced to Rs.10,000 to verify and assure themselves that the guarantors were trustworthy and that, in case of default by the loans, they were in a position to repay the loans granted by them. Clause 6 of the Circular specifically mentions that it was the Branch Managers who were to be personally responsible for the recovery of the finances sanctioned by them, in case of any violation in the terms and conditions of the agricultural loan scheme, and it were to be the Managers who were to be held responsible for any violation of any rules.
15. It has not been pointed even at the appellate stage that the respondent had any power to apply any brake on the Branch Manager, while he was exercising his discretion in regard to the sanction of the loans or the acceptance of the guarantor papers.
16. It is denied by the respondent that any loans had been granted on the last working day of the outgoing Manager, Nasim Kazim. But even assuming that the allegation was true, that something was done before the charge was handed over, later in the day, that would not necessarily lead to an adverse inference. May be the idea was that any exercise gone into should be completed and not left to be reopened by the incoming Branch Manager. But in the light of earlier observation, the respondent in the circumstances of the case can never be accountable, as his powers were not co‑extensive with that of the Branch Manager.
17. It is also not without significance that the amounts were not being distributed to the borrowers directly, but through Diamond Traders in the shape of seeds and fertilizers as admitted by Abdul Ghaffar in his cross -examination.
18. Mr. Farooq Abdul Ghani learned counsel for the appellant urged that in any event it would be in the fitness of things‑ if the respondent is not given full back benefits. I cannot agree with this submission, as the respondent had mentioned in his affidavit that he was jobless. Mr. Farooq Abdul Ghani urged that this had not been mentioned in the grievance notice or grievance petition. But he failed to appreciate that the respondent could bring this to the notice of the Court even orally as observed in the case of Muhammad Bashir and others v. Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1991 SCMR 2087. The stage when this averment was made is duly covered by the judgment referred to above. It is common knowledge that in the interest of expeditious disposal the Labour Courts allow or even insist, that the parties present affidavits in evidence.
19. I will therefore uphold the judgment of the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.
H.B.T./2065/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.