ABDUR RAHMAN FARUQ PIRZADA, J.--- This labour appeal is directed against the impugned judgment, dated 30-9-2005 passed by learned Sindh Labour Court No, VII, Sukkur, whereby the grievance application filed by respondent/applicant Muhammad Riaz was allowed, and the appellant-Bank was directed to reinstate him in service with payment of full back-benefits within a period of 30 days.
2. On 10-11-2008 the arguments by Mr. Shahid Anwar. Bajwa learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Nizamuddin Balouch learned counsel for respondent were heard at length. However before the pronouncement of judgment, both the learned counsel requested for a short adjournment, as the final chance to, see if an amicable settlement between the parties could be reached; as such the matter was adjourned. Today Mr. Shoukat Ali Choudhary, Advocate has appeared, while holding brief on behalf of Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa learned counsel for appellant, and has stated that the parties could not arrive at any settlement outside the Court, as such the case may be decided on merits, on the basis of arguments already submitted by both the learned counsel for respective parties. Mr. Nizamuddin Balouch learned counsel for respondent has also endorsed the above statement by learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant.
3. As briefly stated, the facts of the case as per grievance application are that the respondent Muhammad Riaz was initially employed as a Guard in the Bank in year 1987, and was then promoted as Cashier in the year 1995. The duties of applicant were clerical in nature, as such he was covered by the category of worker/workman as defined under the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. A Golden Handshake Scheme was introduced by the appellant-Bank on 12-4-2003, and as alleged by the appellant-Bank, respondent filed an application, therein giving an option for Golden Handshake Scheme on 12-4-2003. Consequently respondent was relieved from his job on 26-4-2003. However, in the mean time respondent had moved an application on 18-4- 2003, disowning his application dated 12-4-2003. The respondent had moved a departmental appeal on 16-5-2003, and subsequently had given a grievance notice on 14-7-2003, which notice was stated to be dispatched on 27-7-2003. Finally the grievance application was filed before learned trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for appellant contended that a proper application was voluntarily made by respondent Muhammad Riaz before the appellant-Bank, in pursuance of which a decision was taken by the Bank, and he was duly relieved on 26-4-2003. Learned counsel submitted that although at the time of launching the Golden Handshake Scheme on 12-4-2003, and on the date of application filed by respondent, the Scheme was not applicable to Cashiers, but later the same Scheme was made applicable to the case of Cashiers w.e.f, 21-4-2003. Learned counsel for appellant contended that once the Scheme was made applicable to Cashiers including respondent, then it would be deemed that the case of respondent was covered by the Scheme for the ensuing period as well. Respondent had disowned his application dated 18-4-2003, but through evidence which was brought on record, it was established that the same/application was actually signed by the respondent. Learned counsel for appellant argued that it was not the case of respondent Muhammad Riaz that his case was not covered by the Scheme at the time of his application, but he had simply disowned his application, while even denying his signature thereon, as such once it was proved that the said application was signed by respondent, then he could not be allowed to take the advantage of the position that on the date of his application the Golden Handshake Scheme was not applicable to Cashiers. It was further argued that there was no provision for any departmental appeal under Rule 42 of M.C.B. Rules and Regulations, which provides for appeals or applications against the orders of punishment, as in the present case there was no question of any punishment having been awarded to respondent. In view of the position that there was no provision for departmental appeal, the departmental appeal actually preferred by respondent is to be treated as a grievance notice. Following this course of argument, learned counsel for appellant contended that the case of respondent Muhammad Riaz was hit by the law of limitation under the provisions of section 46 of Industrial Relations Ordinance.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent argued that the respondent being a workman had protection under the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, and the same legal point had already been decided in the case of Nazir Ahmed v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. And others in C.P. No,D-1006 of 1999 and Abdul Razaq v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. And others in C.P. No,D- 1007 of 1999 vide judgment by D.B. Of this Court dated 29-7-2003. The respondent had the right to bring his grievance before the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, if his grievance was not redressed by the higher authorities of the concerned organization. He emphatically pressed his argument that on the date of the application allegedly filed by respondent viz. 12-4-2003, Golden Handshake Scheme was not applicable to the case of Cashiers including the respondent. The same Scheme was made applicable subsequently on 21-4-2003. He argued that although the respondent had disowned the said application in his name, but even if the same application were deemed to have been filed by him, even then it would be a nullity in the eyes of law, since the Golden Handshake Scheme was not applicable at all to the -case of respondent. In spite of - that, due to abundant caution the respondent had moved an application dated 18-4-2003, wherein he stated that an application for voluntary Golden Handshake Shake Scheme in his name had been submitted by some unknown officials, and requested that such fake application in ,his name may not be recommended or entertained. However., this application dated 18-4-2003 was not properly considered by the appellant-Bank, and the respondent was unjustifiably relieved from his charge. It was contended that the respondent was victimized on account of trade union activities, since the respondent had been actively participating in such activities, due to which the higher authorities of appellant-Bank were annoyed. On the point of limitation, learned counsel for respondent argued that the cause of action still continued, since the voluntary retirement scheme was not applicable at the relevant time. Any way, when the Bank authorities did not consider his departmental appeal against his unlawful relinquishment of charge, he immediately served the grievance notice upon the management. He submitted that the Honourable Superior Courts have invariably condoned the period of limitation, if any, when the appeal of aggrieved person was not decided by the authorities, and thereafter notice was served by the aggrieved person upon the said Authority. He further submitted that the appellant-Bank have not paid the amount of Golden Handshake Scheme to respondent up to date, as such the grievance notice could be served upon the management even today, as such the grievance application was maintainable under the law.
6. I have carefully considered the above contentions raised by both the learned counsel for respective parties. So far as the right of respondent to approach the learned Labour Court is concerned, learned counsel for appellant-Bank conceded to this right of respondent, in view of the above cited authorities as laid down by D.B. Of this Court.It is admitted position that on 12-4-2003 viz. The date of application moved by respondent to the appellant-Bank for Golden Handshake Scheme, the same Scheme was not applicable to Cashiers. Since the respondent was a Cashier, as such it would be deemed, that there was no valid application for Golden Handshake Scheme on record. In the mean time an application, repudiating the earlier application dated 12-4-2003, was filed by respondent on 18-4-2003. However, subsequently, by way of amendment the Scheme was made applicable to Cashiers w.e.f, 21-4-2003. I am inclined to take the view that the said subsequent D amendment in the scheme, would not imply that the earlier application dated 12-4- 2003 was a valid application under the Rules of the Bank. Although the respondent has disowned the same application, but even if the same were to be accepted to have been signed by him, even then it will not change the legal position. Once it is considered that the very scheme was not applicable to respondent on the date when he filed his application, the subsequent infrastructure built on the basis of said application would also crumble down.
7. It is admitted position that up to date the amount of Golden Handshake Scheme has not been paid to the respondent. Learned counsel for appellant argued that the respondent ought to have moved a proper application for release of such amount. However, this contention does not appeal to reason, since it may have been the moral responsibility of appellant-Bank to have made a proper offer to the respondent to receive the said amount. Although it was argued on behalf of appellant that the respondent had not completed the formalities and other documents for receiving the Golden Handshake amount, however, as per evidence no such letter was produced by the appellant-Bank in order to establish that the respondent was ever directed to produce any such documents before the Bank authorities. In the given circumstances, it is clear that the appellant-Bank were not willing and ready to allow the respondent to have the benefit of receiving the amount of Golden Handshake Scheme, even after having relieved him from his duty on 26-4- 2003. In the circumstances, the contention of respondent would draw attention, that the respondent was simply victimized for his previous trade union activities.
8. In the foregoing facts and circumstances, I find no illegality in the impugned judgment, and the present appeal, being devoid of merits, is dismissed along with the listed applications.
9. As per order, dated 27-10-2005 of this Court, notice was issued to respondent subject to deposit of the amount of back-benefits in terms of the impugned order and the current as well as future monthly dues by 10th day of each month with the Additional Registrar of this Court, and the impugned order was suspended. Pursuant thereto the appellant has been depositing required amount with the Addititnal Registrar of this Court. The' same deposited amount is ordered to be released to the respondent, subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,15,00,000 (fifteen lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court, which will be subject to final adjustment against the actual amount of outstanding dues of respondent against the appellant, pertaining to his salaries along with back-benefits. Learned counsel for appellant has not objected to the release of this amount to respondent against the above mentioned surety.
10. In the above terms this appeal stands disposed of.