This is an application filed by Muhammad Nawaz Sabir, Ex-Cashier, Habib Bank Limited, Bahawalpur under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for reinstatement in service. He was terminated with effect from 6-5-1978 on account of misconduct relating to insubordina--tion and indiscipline by not complying with the orders of transfer from Bahawalpur to Mauza Kharal. The case of the petitioner is that he did not receive any transfer order and worked for one Amir Ali Shah, Cashier of Mauza Kharaj, at his request on account of sudden death of his sister's son and on the next day he handed over the keys to Amir Ali Shah at Bahawalpur. On the other hand it was alleged against the petitioner that he assumed his duty at the bank branch, Mauza Kharal, in compliance with the transfer order and, out of dislike of the, place of his posting returned to Bahawalpur and threw away the keys of his office before Amir Ali Shah by contacting him at his residence in face of his refusal to take back the keys. The petitioner was charged on these lines including certain other charges of misconduct allegedly committed by him in the past and the enquiry was entrusted to Mr. Abbas Cillani, Deputy Controller. After going into the case and recording necessary evidence the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that no valid proof was available to him in regard to the misconduct alleged against the peti--tioner regarding throwing away the keys to Amir Ali Shah. He was of, the view that the matter should not be prolonged as the petitioner was then working satisfactorily in Mauza Kharal Branch. The zonal chief on perusal of the enquiry report proceeded to formulate a list of questions to be put to the petitioner for submitting replies thereto in order to come to a conclusion in the enquiry, the photocopy of the list of questions being Annexure F. He, however, did not write down any note of disagreement with the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer.
2. It is to be noted that neither the Enquiry Officer nor the zonal chief touched the substantial part of the charge-sheet regarding allegations of past misconduct of the petitioner, in that, he was alleged to have defined the order of transfer on previous occasion in September, 1977 and to have proceeded on leave from 13-11-77 to 16-11-1977 without competent approval of the leave. It would, therefore, be taken that it was not considered worthwhile to go in to these questions and the petitioner could be regarded to have been thoroughly absolved of these accusations against him.
As regards the charge of insubordination relating to his transfer to Mauza Kharal, he clearly stood exonerated of the allegations against him in the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer competently appointed by the Zonal Chief. The list of questions put to the petitioner over and above the enquiry proceedings were unwarranted in the eye of law without commenting upon the merits of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer. Without pointing out any defect in the enquiry proceedings or the report itself, the question requiring further evidence in the enquiry could hardly be decided by the reply of the petitioner alone. As for the evidence already on record of the domestic enquiry it was neither discussed by the Zonal Chief nor he made it clear whether the new question framed by him had or had not already been covered by the evidence recorded by the Inquiry Officer. In any case the petitioner admittedly submitted a reply to these questions whereafter without making any further enquiry, the impugned order of termination was passed on the lines "from the proceedings of the enquiry we note that the statement given by you is not satisfactory and moreover you produced a witness who was totally a stranger whose evidence has no value", and that "you have been found guilty of not obeying the Zonal Office instructions and as such charge of disobedience and negligence is proved against you."
3. Obviously the Zonal Chief based his findings on the enquiry proceed--ings without referring to any part of the evidence to show that the stand taken by the petitioner was wrong and the evidence put against him could be evaluated to reach a valid conclusion against him. In case the zonal chief relied on the evidence recorded in domestic enquiry he did not refer to any error of judgment made by the Inquiry Officer and in case he relied on some extraneous factors he neither mentioned them in the termination order nor he called for any evidence in that behalf.
4. It was urged on behalf of the respondent bank that in labour cases a Labour Court is concerned only with the question whether action taken against employee accorded with law and the question whether the employee did or did not commit offence charged with being a question of fact could only be enquired-into by the Inquiry Officer and none else and that the Court could not go into the facts of the case. He relied on the authority of the Supreme Court Muhammad Shamim v. Mst.
Pakistan Tabacco Company Ltd. Karachi and another (1975 SCMR 46). The contention raised on behalf of the respondent has no force neither in point of fact or in point of law. Because on the legal aspect it has been shown on behalf of the petitioner that the domestic enquiry did not proceed according to law inasmuch as the enquiry proceedings were not taken up under the relevant rules framed by the Wage Commission i.e. The Efficiency & Discipline (Banks & Financial Institutions)
Rules, 1975. The Wage Commission of 1975 made it clear in paragraph 258 of its report that it had been decided to lay down uniform procedure in respect of disciplinary action and punishments to be followed by all the banks and financial institutions and the aforesaid rules were framed for this purpose to be applicable to all the banks and financial institutions, The respondent bank, as it has been shown on its behalf, took up the enquiry in the present case under the rules framed on the lines of Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. So clearly enough the action impugned by the petitioner did not accord with law as having been taken under a law not applicable to the disciplinary matters of the bank.
5. On the other hand the Supreme Court authority quoted on behalf of the respondent was not/pronounced in view of the new provisions couched in section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, according to sub--section 5 of which a labour Court was authorized to go into all the facts of the case in adjudicating and determining a grievance under subsection (4) and pass such order as may be just and proper in the circumstances of the case. This position stands fully supported by the subsequent rule given by the Supreme Court in the case Crescent Jute Products Limited, Jaranwala v. MuhammadYaqoob, etc. (PLD 1978 SC 210) in which it was laid down that the Labour Court's jurisdiction was wide enough to go into the questions of fact and even to go behind the dismissal order and see for itself whether on facts, and in circumstances of the case, dismissal order was or was not justified both on merits as law.
6. In the light of foregoing discussion we can hardly resist the conclusion that in the present case neither the enquiry was made under the appropriate law nor the relevant facts were properly made a subject of evidence or enquired into on proper lines and that the conclusion reached by the Zonal Chief of the respondent bank merely acted upon his personal whims without appreciating the evidence led in the domestic enquiry or making an independent enquiry himself on the proper lines. In the result, the enquiry procedure adopted by the respondent did not accord with law or the facts of the case and on this sore this petition succeeds. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to be re-instated with all back wages within a period of 10 days. The file may be consigned.