NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI Versus SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI

1. HAZIQUL KHAIRI, J.‑‑ The petitioner is a banking company owned, managed and controlled by the Federal Government under the Banks (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. Respondent No. 1 is the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and respondent No. 2 was an employee of the petitioner and was serving as Manager Grade II Officer and Incharge of Sinjhoro branch of the petitioner.

2. During his posting as Manager Sinjhoro Branch, respondent No. 2 is alleged to have negligently granted agricultural loans by using his discretionary power out of which Rs.23,600 were struck up because he did not take appropriate steps for its recovery. The documents obtained by him were improper and invalid and hence were also ineffective for the purpose of recovery. Accordingly he was charge‑sheeted and was dismissed from service by order dated 13‑6‑1981 by the petitioner after detailed enquiry and affording him full opportunity to explain his position. Respondent No. 2 thereupon riled a departmental appeal on 8‑8‑1991 which too was rejected by the petitioner on 11‑4‑4984.

3. Respondent No. 2, however, purporting to act under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Order, 1969 sent a grievance notice dated 3‑5‑1984 to the petitioner which was replied by the petitioner on 14‑5‑1984. Thereafter, he moved an application under section 25‑A of I.R.O. 1969 before the Labour Court No. 6 at Hyderabad which was dismissed on the jurisdictional ground that respondent No. 1 was not a worker but was performing supervisory any administrative duties. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Labour Appellate respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before the Sindh Labour Appellant Tribunal, Karachi respondent No. 1 herein which by order dated 17‑7‑1986 se aside the order of the Labour Court holding respondent No. 1 as workman an< ordered that respondent No. 1 be reinstated in service with back benefits to the extent of 60%.

4. Mr. Partab Rai, learned counsel for petitioner, has assailed the order of the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, respondent No. 1 on the ground that service of the respondent No. 2 was governed under the Wage Commission Award whereunder the jurisdiction of Labour Court was barred and proceeding against the respondent No. 2 could only be initiated before N.I.R.C. It was pointed out that the petitioner has its statutory rules and I.R.O. is not applicable even if respondent No. 2 was performing clerical job. Learned counsel in support of his contention placed reliance on 1990 PLC 197 and 593; 1985 PLC 105(i); 1987 PLC 180 and 846 and 1986 PLC 749.

5. The contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Mr. Salahuddin H. Ahmed was that a finding of fact cannot be interfered by High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction and that 'right to approach the Labour Court is available to a Bank employee under IRO 1969. Reliance was placed by him on 1980 SCMR 1713; 1992 SCMR 505; PLD 1988 SC 53; 1982 SCMR 1891; 1991 PLC 230 and 1990 PLC 415.

6. What, however, is pertinent to note is that the petitioner had submitted to the jurisdiction of the said Labour Court No.6 as well as the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, but no objection was raised by them that the service of the respondent No. 2 was governed under the Wage Commission Award and the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was barred as proceeding of this nature could only be initiated before N.I.R.C. This ground was urged by the petitioner in this Constitutional petition. Learned counsel for petitioner has failed to satisfy us that when this jurisdictional question was not taken up by the petitioner before the said two Courts how this question can be agitated in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Our view, however, is that the petitioner cannot raise this question now.

7. The only question raised by the petitioner before the said two Courts was that the respondent was not a worker but was performing administrative, financial or supervisory duties in capacity of as Manager in Grade 11. It is an admitted position that in the enquiry before the Enquiry Officer appointed by the petitioner neither any prosecution witness was examined nor the respondent No. 1 was afforded any opportunity to produce any witness in defence. There is no controversy that the appellant was Manager of Sinjhoro branch only up to 27‑5‑1975 where after he was working as an Accountant and. was called as "Staff Officer". It was contended by him that his duties were purely of clerical nature as he used to maintain accounts. It may be stated here that the only witness of the petitioner‑Bank who was also appointed as Enquiry Officer in his cross‑examination had admitted that he did not know if the applicant did not act as Manager since 1975 till his dismissal. He also expressed his ignorance if respondent No. 1 used to maintain accounts during 1975‑80. He was also not sure if he exercised administrative powers or not. Accordingly the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the Enquiry Officer who was only witness produced by the petitioner about the status and duties of respondent has failed to establish that respondent No. 2 was not a worker and merely because he was designated as Staff Officer will not oust him from claiming that he was a workman and doing the work of clerical nature. On the other hand, the deposition of respondent No. 2 satisfactorily established his stand that he was performing clerical duties in capacity of an Accountant.

8. In view of this position we shall not interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal. In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs.

9. H.B.T./N‑465/K ????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition dismissed.