HABIB BANK LTD. Versus ABDUL AZIZ KHAN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court upholding the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had set aside the dismissal of Respondent No.1 from bank service for misconduct. The respondent had attempted to secure an interest-free house building loan using a fake sale deed. The Labour Court dismissed his application against dismissal, but the Labour Appellate Tribunal and subsequently the High Court held that the inquiry proceedings were vitiated because the Bank failed to produce the Inquiry Officer as a witness before the Labour Court to be cross-examined regarding the recording of statements in the respondent's absence. The core legal question concerns whether the employer was legally bound to examine the Inquiry Officer as its own witness before the Labour Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider this question.
- Whether an employer is in law bound to examine the Inquiry Officer before the Labour Court as its own witness to enable cross-examination?
- Does the failure to produce the Inquiry Officer before the Labour Court vitiate the domestic inquiry proceedings?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑ ‑Respondent No.1 herein was dismissed from service for misconduct as he attempted to get an interest‑free loan of Rs.40,000 from the Bank for the purchase of a house on the basis of fake document purporting to be a sale‑deed of a house which, in fact, did not exist. It was during the scrutiny of the case that this fact transpired. An inquiry was, accordingly, held and he was found guilty of misconduct. He approached the Labour Court through an application for his reinstatement and back benefits, but did not succeed as the petition was dismissed on 31‑10‑1977.
2. On appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, this order was set aside on the grounds: firstly, because the Bank was not, in fact, deceived in the absence of sanction of advance; and, secondly, that the petitioner had failed to produce the Inquiry Officer before the Punjab Labour Court in evidence so as to provide an opportunity to cross‑examine him and this omission resulted in the vitiation of the proceedings.
3. The High Court in writ jurisdiction did not accept the first ground but agreed with the Labour Appellate Tribunal on the second ground.
4. Leave was sought on the ground, whether the petitioner was in law bound to examine the Inquiry Officer before the Labour Court as its own witness so as to give an opportunity to the respondent to cross‑examine him for establishing his contention that the statements of three witnesses were recorded in his absence.
5. Leave to appeal is granted as this question requires consideration.
6. Security for costs Rs.2,500. As the respondent was reinstated, therefore, no interim order is called for. The appeal arising from the petition shall be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if any. The appeal should be listed for hearing within six months.
7. M.I./H‑41/S Leave granted.