' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--- This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution has been filed against the judgment, dated 14-3-2005 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar; in a labour appeal arising out of a petition filed by the respondent under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (I.R.O.).
2. The relevant facts in the background are that the respondent was employed in Muslim Commercial Bank and while posted as Cashier in Bisham Branch, District Shangla, he along with Attaullah, Manager of the Branch, was served with the charge-sheet containing the allegation of misappropriation of the irregular payments made on 31 cheques during the period from January, 1997 to October, 1998 and was proceeded against for the charge of misconduct under. Bank Staff Rules. In the departmental inquiry, the petitioner and his companion was found guilty of the, charge and the competent authority in the light of inquiry report and the concerned material, dismissed them from service.
3. The grievance petition filed by the respondent under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969, before the Labour Court was initially dismissed on the ground that he was not a "workman" in terms of section 2(xxviii) of I.R.O., 1969 and could not maintain such a petition before the Labour Court but subsequently, on remand of the case by the N.-W.F.P. Labour Appellate Tribunal, the Labour Court in the post-remand proceedings allowed the grievance petition and reinstated him in service. The appellant-Bank challenged the order of Labour Court in an appeal before the N.-W.F.P. Labour Appellate Tribunal and on the dismissal of the appeal, has filed the present petition.
4. Learned -counsel for the petitioner having read before us the charge against the respondent, has contended that notwithstanding the fact that no financial loss was caused to the Bank and respondent was also not found to have misappropriated the amount in question, in consequence to the gross negligence of respondent, the bank in addition to the temporary loss of money also suffered loss of reputation as a financial institution and at least the charge of negligence was proved beyond any doubt. Learned counsel has contended that the judgment of the Tribunal was self-contradictory as on one hand Tribunal observed that the lack of vigilance on the part of respondent not to follow the instructions regarding obtaining of signatures of the person who presented the cheque, was apparent on the record which may constitute an act of gross negligence but on the other hand held that respondent was not responsible to the irregular payments and did not facilitate misappropriation of the amount in question.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the contrary submitted that the Labour Court having come to the conclusion that charge against the respondent was not as such proved in the departmental inquiry, allowed the grievance petition and in appeal filed by the Bank, the N.-W.F.P.
Labour Appellate Tribunal affirmed the judgment of the Labour Court, therefore, notwithstanding the observation of Tribunal regarding the negligence of the respondent, the concurrent finding of two Courts on the charge of misconduct being not suffering from any legal or factual infirmity would not call for interference of this Court.
6. This is correct that usually this Court is reluctant to interfere in the concurrent findings of the Courts on a question of fact or a mixed question of law and fact based on evidence and mere fact that another view of the evidence was also possible or a wrong view of the evidence was taken by the concerned forum may not be a valid ground for interference of this Court. However, in the light of the facts of the present case, when we confronted the learned counsel for the respondent that under the Bank Staff Rules, a cashier before making payment, is required to obtain signatures of the person who presented the cheque and also verify the identity of such person whereas the respondent allowed encashment of certain cheques without proper verification of signatures of the person who presented the cheque and his identity in consequence to which the Bank suffered loss both in terms of money and reputation, he has neither been able to give a satisfactory answer nor could convince us that respondent was not negligent or in the light of concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the Tribunal on the charge of misconduct, the act of negligence would have no material effect on the transaction. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, without pressing this petition on merits for setting aside the order of reinstatement of respondent in service, submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the reinstatement of respondent with all back-benefits was not justified and if the order in respect of payment of back- benefits is set aside, the appellant would be satisfied. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has stated that the back-benefits have already been paid to the respondent and to put him under financial burden at this stage may not be justified rather imposition of any minor penalty provided under the Bank Staff Rules, would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
7. We having heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record in detail with their assistance, have not been able to find out any defect in the judgment so far as it relates to the reinstatement of respondent and payment of back-benefits is concerned. However, we may point out that the Labour Appellate Tribunal having come to the conclusion that Bank was successful in establishing the charge of willful negligence against the respondent, instead of proposing even a minor penalty commensuration with the nature of charge, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of Labour Court. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the present case and the finding of the Labour Appellate Tribunal as well as the position taken by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that minor penalty of stoppage of two increments for a period of two years, would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Consequently, we convert this petition into an appeal and modifying the judgment of the Tribunal direct that respondent shall undergo the penalty of the stoppage of two increments for two years without accumulative effect. This appeal in the above terms stands partly allowed with no order as to the costs.