NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI Versus WIQAR AHMED

DECISION

This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court, Sukkur reinstating the petitioner in service with back benefits.

2. The said petitioner was appointed as a Tester with the respondent in 1966 and in due course was promoted to the position of a Senior Head Cashier. It appears that there was a defalcation in the sum of Rs.49,835.03 and he came to be charge‑sheeted for its misappropriation on 2‑2‑1983. (There was a supplementary charge‑sheet on 3‑7‑1985). As the reply was not found to be satisfactory, an enquiry was ordered. The same was conducted by Ali Ahmed Khan who examined witnesses Amjad Ali Shaikh and Abdul Majeed. The statement of the petitioner also was recorded. The Inquiry Officer had submitted his report in which he had found the petitioner guilty of the charge. He was thereupon dismissed from service on 14‑12‑1985. An appeal was preferred before the Bank President which came to be dismissed on 24‑6‑1986.

3. There was‑also a criminal case pending against the respondent before the Special Court (Offences in Banks) at Karachi wherein he came to be acquitted on 25‑4‑1991. It was thereafter that he had given the grievance notice on 12‑5‑1991. As the grievance remained un-redressed he followed it up by a petition before the. Labour Court.

4. The petition came to be resisted by the Bank. Inter alia it was alleged that it was not maintainable as the Labour Court had no jurisdiction and otherwise too, it was barred by time.

5. The petitioner was his own witness and Ali Hassan Soomro appeared for the Bank. The Labour Court ['or the reasons given by it allowed the petition with back benefits.

6. The challenge about the status of the petitioner was taken up even before me. It was urged that he was enjoying a supervisory post, with a pay of over 2,000 rupees per month. But the fact remained that the duties as narrated by him in his affidavit were not controverted by the respondent and Ali Hassan Soomro, the Area Manager who had been examined before the Labour Court admitted that the petitioner could neither grant leave to any employee nor take any disciplinary action against him. The contention that he was having a power of attorney by itself will be neither here nor there and I agree with the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner was workman.

7. There is no gainsaying the fact that the petitioner was dismissed on 14‑12‑1985 and even his appeal had been rejected on 24‑6‑1986 by the President of the Bank. The respondent had stirred into activity only after the judgment of the Special Court referred to above, and the grievance notice came in its wake on 11‑6‑1991. The grievance notice under the circumstances is very much beyond 3 months and that is enough to dispose of the appeal.

8. It was however contended that the petitioner had a fresh cause of action, on his acquittal by the Special Court. I am afraid, I cannot agree as I have taken the contrary view in a few matters earlier and nothing has been placed before me to change the same.

9. As a criminal case is no bar to the holding of a domestic inquiry and as the two proceedings have a distinct and separate existence of their own, the order of dismissal on the basis of the findings of the inquiry will not be affected by the verdict of the criminal trial.

10. Mr. Gulzar Ahmed drew my attention to the fact that the petitioner had only been acquitted on being given the benefit of doubt. It is not necessary to look in that direction. Section 25‑A, I.R.O. envisages only one cause of grievance and one grievance notice, and that has to be within three months of the arising of the grievance. The petition was therefore hopelessly time‑barred.

11. The learned Presiding Officer however referring to certain decisions was of the view that because the enquiry was not fair and the charge‑sheet was beyond time, therefore the order culminating in the petitioner's dismissal. was void and the order being void, it, could be challenged any time.

12. To my mind even if it be assumed that there was some flaw in the enquiry, or any defects in the procedure followed, that will not make the order void. It will be merely a bad order liable to be set aside by a competent Court. A void order as held in Yousuf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia and 2 others PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 105, would be one where something is done beyond and, in excess of jurisdiction, and that cannot be said in the instant case.

13. As the petition is time‑barred, it is not necessary to look into the other contentions raised before me. I will therefore vacate the order of the Labour Court and allow the appeal.

???????????

H.B.T./2160/Lb.S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.