UNITED BANK LTD. Versus SHAFIQUE ANWER

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by Messrs United Bank Limited, against an impugned order dated 5‑4‑1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, who had allowed the grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969 of the respondent directing his re‑instatement in service with full back benefits.

2.Brief facts of the case are that the respondent claimed to be a permanent employee of the appellant bank working as a Cashier at the relevant time and was also covered by the provisions of Labour Laws. On 12‑11‑1984 at about 8‑30 A.M. the respondent approached the Branch Manager for the grant of leave on the ground of serious illness of his wife who was admitted in hospital but as the Branch Manager was not present, another Officer of the appellant bank, namely, Mr. Rajani had advised him to wait for him. The respondent also claimed that on the date he took his teenaged children to the appellant bank because in the absence of his wife, there was no one to look‑after them. He further claimed that as the said Mr. Rajani had agreed to look‑after the cash in his absence, therefore, he left the bank, but on 17‑11‑1984 when he returned from leave, he was served with a charge‑sheet dated 14‑11‑1984 was also verbally informed that since he belonged to Shama Group in the appellant bank and a close associate of its President, namely, Mr. Shabbir, who had filed his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court, so, he would not be spared. Further, the claim of the respondent was that though he satisfactorily replied to the charge‑sheet emphatically denying all the charges levelled therein, yet, a domestic enquiry was initiated against him by one Mr. Hilal Pasha, vide, letter dated 8‑12‑1984 after keeping him under suspension. He further claimed that as in this enquiry nothing was proved against him and even the enquiry report was not provided to him, therefore, he was re‑instated by letter, dated 15‑4‑1985 and that after expiry of a period of about six months, another enquiry was conducted by another enquiry officer, namely, Mr. Masha Alah Khan on, the same charges in which he was not afforded full opportunity to defend himself resulting in his dismissal from service vide letter, dated 30‑10‑1985. The respondent claimed th4kt thereafter he submitted a departmental appeal followed by his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.

3.The appellant bank resisted the petition and had denied the allegations of the respondent by submitting that it had no concern whatsoever with any Group of the employees and had submitted that in fact the respondent had misbehaved with his superiors and had fought with them and also had damaged the property of the employer. The appellant bank further submitted that it was incorrect to state that the respondent was not afforded full opportunity to defend himself or that two domestic enquiries on the same charge were held against him. They submitted that as the respondent was rightly proceeded with against the charges and subsequently dismissed, therefore, he was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.

4.Both the parties led their respective evidence before the learned Labour Courts and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed, hence, the present appeal.

5.I have heard, Mr. Iqbal Habib, Senior Vice President on behalf of the appellant bank and Mr. Ishaque Abbasi, the learned Advocate for the respondent and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that on the relevant date, the wife of the respondent was seriously ill and she was admitted in hospital in connection with delivery case and that there was no other person to look‑after his teenaged children. Again, there is also an admitted position that the complainant on behalf of the appellant bank, namely, Mashkoor Ahmad, the Branch Manager in his cross- examination before the Enquiry Officer had specifically admitted that Mr. Hilal Pasha had also previously conducted the enquiry into the same allegations and there is nothing on record to justify the reasons of holding second enquiry after lapse of more than six months by another Enquiry Officer, namely, Mr. Masha Alah Khan. The suppression of this important fact by the appellant bank clearly established that it was not at all with clean hands against the respondent, From the record, it is also proved that the respondent had not deliberately damaged the property of the employer as the breakage of the glass was simply an incident for the main reason that the frame of the glass was loose and it is on the record that the respondent had several times reported this fact to the Branch Manager. Further, the value of this glass was not disclosed by the appellant bank to ascertain the fact that how much loss was sustained by the employer. There is no evidence on record to rebut the stand of the respondent, Mr. Iqbal Habib for the appellant bank has no legs to stand in support of his case. There is nothing wrong with the impugned order. I would maintain the findings of the learned Labour Court.

6.For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would accordingly maintain the same. The present appeal is dismissed. The respondent is directed to be re‑instated in service forthwith but with a modification that he would be entitled to get only 25$ (twenty five per cent) of the back benefits. This` amount be paid to the respondent out of the total amount of back benefits deposited by the appellant bank it this Tribunal after due verification of the respondent Shafique Anwar s/o Karam Dad.

A.E./1112/LB.S . Appeal dismissed.