' RAJA ABDULLAH KHAN (MEMBER)---Being aggrieved with his termination order dated 14-3-1998 issued by the respondents, the petitioner Malik Nasim Iqbal, Ex-Gunman of respondent-Bank has filed this grievance petition on 8-7-2000 after a lapse of more than two years under section 22A(8)
(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 which has since been repealed by I.R.O., 2002 praying that the respondents may be restrained from committing unfair labour practice and direction be issued to them to reinstate the petitioner with all back-benefits.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to this petition are that thepetitioner was appointed as Gunman on 20-11-1982 according to rules and regulations of respondents management. After some time due to trade union activities of the petitioner, the respondents became hostile towards him. He was elected unopposed as Joint Secretary of Progressive Employees Union of the Bank. Subsequently, after fake, baseless proceedings, services of the petitioner were terminated vide termination letter dated 14-3-1998. The petitioner has alleged that the respondents committed unfair labour practice and victimized him on account of his trade union activities. Hence he filed the instant petition on 8- 7-2000 after a lapse of more than two years as mentioned above. Along with main petition an application under Regulation 32(2) of NIRC (Procedure and Function) Regulations, 1973 was also filed.
3. The respondents bank filed comments/written statement on the main petition as well as reply to the stay application. They contested and resisted the main petition as well as stay application on legal and factual grounds. They denied the allegations of unfair labour practice and defended the termination order of the petitioner on the ground of misconduct committed by him in the shape of physically assaulting the Manager of Shinka Branch. They also challenged the maintainability of this petition. They prayed for dismissal of the petition as well as the stay application.
4. After hearing the learned Advocates for the, parties and perusal of the record on. The maintainability of the petition before this Commission, my learned predecessor Mr. Abdul Qayyum Raja on 13-4-2002 dismissed the petition along with stay application holding that petition was not maintainable for want of jurisdiction.
5. Being aggrieved with the above order dated 13-4-2002 of dismissal of the petition, the petitioner filed appeal before the Full Bench of the Commission. The Full Bench after hearing the parties and perusal of the record accepted the appeal of the petitioner/appellant and remanded his case to the Single Bench for decision on merits after recording evidence of the parties.
6. In pursuance of the above order of the Full Bench of NIRC, the parties were allowed to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. They have adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. The petitioner Malik Nasim Iqbal has examined himself Exh.P/1 in support of his case while the respondents have examined Sardar Allahyar Khan Exh. D.W./1 on their behalf. These witnesses have produced documentary evidence as well in support of their versions. These witnesses of the parties were subjected to cross- examination.
7. I have heard Malik Mehrban, Labour Representative for the petitioner and M. Mushtaq Hussain Bhatti, Advocate for the respondents and perused the entire record carefully.
8. The petitioner has supported his case- in examination-in-chief in his affidavit Exh. P.W.-1 He was cross-examined by Mr. Mushtaq Hussain Bhatti, Advocate for respondents. In the cross- examination he has admitted that he was Watchman/Gunman in the respondent-Bank and his duty was to keep watch on the Bank clients coming to the bank for transactions and also to keep watch of the Bank premises and assets inside the Bank and also to keep watch when Cash was delivered by the Cashier to the Customers. He has also admitted that he was charge-sheeted by the respondents-Bank on 10-11-1997. He has not stated that he was doing any manual work. The petitioner has denied in the evidencethat the charge in the inquiry was assaulting the Manager of the Bank of Shinka Branch in the presence of Bank clients and Cashier. He has however, admitted the charge-sheet dated 10-11-1997 which falsifies the statement of petitioner regarding the charge against him because it is clearly mentioned in the charge-sheet regarding assaulting the Manager of the above Branch by the petitioner. He has also admitted that he participated in the inquiry proceedings. He however, voluntarily stated that whatever the Inquiry Officer recorded that was at his own and not as stated by him and the witnesses of the prosecution as mentioned in the enquiry report at pages 106 to 114. He has denied the fact that he was given an opportunity to make statement or to produce his defence in any inquiry. According to him the inquiry was illegal. He has, however, produced inquiry report as Exh. D/1 (31 pages) (Pages from.71 to 101). Though the petitioner has denied the inquiry report but has admitted his signatures on enquiry report from pages 73 to
81. The perusal of the inquiry proceedings clearly shows that the inquiry was conducted in presence of the petitioner and he signed each page of the inquiry report accepting the correctness of the same. 'Thus his statement that he was not given the opportunity of making statement and to produce his defence is falsified by the inquiry proceedings (page 81 of the file refers). He has also admitted that he was served with two show-cause notices in regard to this inquiry. In this inquiry report the Inquiry Officer has held that the charges against the accused regarding assaulting the Manager Shinka Branch stands proved against the petitioner. The admission on the part of the petitioner that he was, charge-sheeted and inquiry was held against him and he was issued show- cause notices, supports the case of the respondents-Bank regarding the misbehavior and assaulting the Manager of Shinka Branch by the petitioner and the enquiry having been proved against him. The petitioner has been terminated due to his misconduct as rightly proved against him in the inquiry report in which he participated and no unfair labour practice has been proved by him against the respondents by any evidence. Even the petitioner has not said a word of unfair labour practice on the part of the respondent in his explanation to the charge-sheet as is clear from pages 83 and 84 of the file. The allegations of unfair labour practice given in para. 7 of the petition without giving specific instance are afterthought and cannot be accepted, as he has failed to prove the same by any evidence whatsoever which is denied by the respondents and their versions that the petitioner was terminated due to the misconduct committed by him gets full support from the cross-examination of the petitioner as indicated above.
9. Malik Mehrban, Labour Representative for the petitioner has contended that the inquiry was not conducted by Sardar Allahyar in accordance with law and as no copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner, hence this inquiry report cannot be used against thepetitioner and as a result the order dated 14-3-1998 of termination of the petitioner is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with all back-benefits. In support of his contention he has.
Relied upon the Authority reported in 1990 PLC page 192. This contention of Malik Mehrab, Labour Representative is not tenable and the authority relied upon by him is distinguishable from the facts of this case. The non-supply of inquiry report to the petitioner does not vitiate action taken by the respondents-Bank in terminating him from service. In this respect reliance is placed upon the authorities reported in PLD 1996 SC 787 and 1999 SCM R 1237. The proceedings of inquiry at pages 73 to 81 clearly show that the Inquiry Officer recorded the statement of B witnesses of prosecution in presence of the petitioner and asked him if he wanted to adduce defence to which he' replied in the negative. The Inquiry Officer also asked the petitioner if he has any objection in the inquiry proceedings to which he replied in negative (page 81 of file refers). The petitioner on the other hand has admitted the correctness of the inquiry proceedings, as he signed each page of inquiry proceedings as admitted by him in his cross-examination. After the petitioner has singed each page of the inquiry proceedings, now he cannot term the proceedings as illegal. No enmity whatsoever is alleged by the petitioner against the Inquiry Officer and therefore there was no, reason for him to have held him guilty for the charges. The conduct of the petitioner shows that he was in the habit of misbehaving with his superiors. He fought with Mumtaz Sahib and the matter was compromised and the petitioner tendered apology on 28-114991 as is clear from the back of page 90 of the file because the apology tendered by him on 28-11-1991 bears the signature of the petitioner. He also misbehaved with Sabir Ali, Manager Shinka Branch of respondent-Bank and the charge stood proved against him as per inquiry report, hence the petitioner has been rightly and correctly terminated by the respondents-Bank after the charge was proved against him. Malik Mehrban, Labour Representative has contended that the termination order is not proper because the petitioner was issued show-cause notices for dismissal. This contention of Malik Mehrban is also not tenable. On the other and the respondents have shows leniency in awarding the punishment by way of termination so that future of .The petitioner may not be marred. Had the respondents dismissed the petitioner, they would have been justified to do so as a serous charge of misconduct stood proved against him. Had the petitioner been dismissed from service, he would have not been able to take up appointment in any way in any Government Organization but by termination he could seek employment in any Government Organization. No unfair labour practice has been proved by the petitioner against the respondent by any evidence whatsoever which has been denied by the respondents and hence in the absence of proof of unfair labour practice having been committed by the respondents, this Court has no jurisdictionto deal with this petition.
Besides the petitioner being Gunman/ Watchman is not a workman because he does not do any manual work, hence the petitioner is not maintainable on this ground also. Reliance is placed on 1983 PLC P-273 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab) and 1982 PLC P-228 and 635 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh).
10. In addition the petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground that it suffers from laches because the petitioner was terminated on 14-3-1998 and lie filed the petition in July, 2000 after about more than two years without explaining the reason for delay. This view finds support from the judgment reported in 1976 PLC page 631 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Siudh).
11. For the above reasons the petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has failed to prove any unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents which they have denied and on merits the petitioner has no case because he has_ been terminated after due inquiry and show-cause notice in which the charges of misconduct of assaulting the Manager as mentioned in the charge- sheet stood proved against him and he has admitted the correctness of the inquiry repot because each page of the inquiry report is signed by him as discussed above. Petition stands dismissed. File be consigned to record after its duly completion.