NABI SHER KHAN Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Challenge has been made in this petition to the order dated 12‑7‑1989 of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the decision dated 27‑4‑1989 of the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, dismissing. Riasat Ali Azad, respondent No. 3 herein, an employee of the petitioner‑Bank, was set aside and he was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.

2. The facts in brief are that respondent No. 3 was in the employment of the petitioner bank and he was issued a charge‑sheet for being absent from duty on certain dates and that he had quarreled with one account‑holder, namely, Munir Ahmad on 2‑8‑1983. An enquiry was conducted into the allegations levelled against him. He was found guilty by the Inquiry Officer. Consequently, he was dismissed from service. Being aggrieved with his dismissal, he filed a petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, which was accepted vide order dated 27‑4‑1989, and he was ordered to be reinstated in service without back benefits. This order was upheld in appeal vide judgment dated 17‑7‑1989 passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal.

3. The only plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of his arguments, was that the findings of both the Courts below that the second show‑cause notice was essential, is contrary to. law, in that, respondent No. 3 was given full opportunity to explain the charges levelled against him. He was also heard by the Inquiry Officer during the course of inquiry who found him guilty of the misconduct with which he was charged. On the basis of enquiry report, respondent No. 3 was dismissed from service and therefore, it was not necessary to give him a copy of the enquiry report which in any case, was not the requirement of Wage Commission's Award. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner turns on the scope of paragraph 258(4) and (5) of the Wage Commission's Award which reads thus:‑‑

"258. The Commission noticed that disciplinary rules in the various banks/financial institutions are not only lacking in uniformity but they also do not provide for any show‑cause notice requiring the employees to explain their conduct. This is not quite fair. An employee who is alleged to have committed breach of discipline should be given opportunity to explain his position and submit the relevant record/evidence in defence with regard to the charges against him. It has, therefore, been decided to lay down uniform procedure in respect of disciplinary action and punishment to be followed by all banks and financial institutions.

(2) .........................................................................................

(3) .

(4) Inquiry procedure. ‑‑‑Before it is decided to impose any penalty on an employee for an offence of which he has been reported guilty, he shall be called upon by the competent authority to render a written explanation of the charges against him and show cause by such date as may be specified in this behalf as to why disciplinary action should not. be taken against him. The employee's explanation together with the charges against him shall be submitted to the authority competent to impose the penalty.

(5) The Authority shall either inquire into the case itself or obtain an independent report on the case in writing from an officer or a committee of officers specially deputed by the authority to investigate the case. The report together with the employee's statement shall be laid before the authority who shall then consider the matter and impose any penalty as it deems proper in the circumstances. The decision of that authority shall be conveyed in writing to the employee concerned."

The bare perusal of sub‑paragraph (5) would show that service of the second show‑cause notice is neither spelt out from the provisions of sub‑paragraphs (4) and (5) ibid nor form part of rule of natural justice, but sub‑paragraph (5) makes it obligatory upon (he competent authority to consider the inquiry report together with the "employee's statement" before considering the matter and imposing any penalty as it may deem proper in the circumstances.

4. The term "employee's statement" is in addition to the employee's "written explanation" to the charge‑sheet/reply to the show‑cause notice as contemplated by sub‑paragraph (4) ibid. Here the statement of respondent No.3 was neither obtained nor laid before the authority for consideration and in the absence thereof, the order for dismissal of the petitioner could not have been sustained:

Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.

H.B.T./N-158/L

Petition dismissed.