HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- Facts leading to this Labour appeal are that the respondent Umeed Ali while serving as cashier in UBL was charge-sheeted, inquiry was conducted, Inquiry Committee recommended stoppage of three increments but the Bank management disagreeing with the Committee's recommendations compulsorily retired the respondent from service on 14.3.2001.
2. The respondent filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal in view of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunal Act, however, due to privatization of UBL the appeal was returned and the respondent served grievance notice and then approached the Punjab Labour Court No. VII Gujranwala with a request to set aside the compulsory retirement order and for his reinstatement in service with back benefits. The learned Labour Court accepted the respondent's petition to the extent that punishment of stoppage of three increments would remain intact and petitioner would be reinstated in service, it was further held that as the punishment has remained intact therefore, the respondent would be entitled to the back benefits to the tune of 50%. Aggrieved by this, the UBL has filed LA. No. 127/2008 and respondent Umeed Ali filed L.A. No. 137/2008 wherein the UBL requested for upholding the order of compulsory retirement of respondent and setting aside the impugned judgment whereas Umeed Ali respondent in his appeal No. 137/2008 requested for his reinstatement without any penalty of stoppage of increments and with 100% back benefits.
3. Both the appeals are heard today.
4. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that the learned Labour Court exceeded his lawful limits rendering the impugned judgment a nullity in the eye of law when there is a finding of learned Labour Court available in para-17 of the impugned judgment to the extent of accepting the Bank stance in respect of respondent's misconduct, then no justification rested with the learned Labour Court to alter the penalty of compulsory retirement into stoppage of increments, further submits that the learned Labour Court did not advert to the confessional statement of the respondent and as such erred in law while reinstating the petitioner into service. The learned counsel relied on 2008 SCM R 899 and submits for setting aside of the impugned judgment.
5. Conversely the learned counsel for Umeed Ali respondent submits that the charge-sheet itself was time barred, according to the bank Authorities occurrence took place on 27.9.2000 whereas the charge sheet was served on 15.12.2000 so under Standing order 15(4) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders), Ordinance 1968 the charge-sheet should have been served within one month of the alleged occurrence and bare reading of the charge sheet itself reflects the belated action of the bank Authorities which is a sufficient ground for the quashment of entire proceedings against the respondent he relies on 2001 SCMR 921. Further submits that the charge-sheet and the contents reflect a different picture then the evidence on record and the findings of the inquiry committee and the inquiry committee when recommended for stoppage of three increments, the management could not enhance the punishment by way of retiring the employee compulsorily and that too without mentioning any reason. Adds that assuming for a moment not conceding that some lapse was made by the respondent, his entire service record should have been examined and it is well settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that if a person is found throughout his service career negligent in the performance of his duties only once then he should only be warned and not imposed any penalty.
6. Arguments heard; record perused.
7. So far the question of belated charge-sheet is concerned, the learned counsel for the Bank submits that the proceedings against the respondent were initiated/finalized under the provisions of Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and there is no such provision which could bar the departmental Authorities as is in Standing Order's provisions. With the help of both the learned counsel I have perused the charge-sheet, order of compulsory retirement but could not find any mention of RSO but simultaneously I could .Not find the mentioning of provisions of Standing Order also, however, in the inquiry proceedings when the penalty of stoppage of increments was recommended mentioning of provisions of RSO are found, thus in the circumstances of the case there is no need to give any finding on the belated charge-sheet.
8. So far the merits of the case are concerned, suffice it to refer the plain wording of charge-sheet and the statement of PW-1 Muhammad Bashir son of Lal Din, wherein he categorically stated that "I went to the bank branch in order to deposit the amount in shape of prize bonds worth Rs. 50,000/- I met the petitioner who was cashier and asked him to deposit the amount in shape of prize bonds in my account. He told me that prize bonds could not be deposited and asked me to change the prize bonds on which I told him that I do not know the procedure. The petitioner Umeed Ali issued me receipt and told me that amount will be deposited after getting the charge of prize bonds from Gujranwala. On that date, I did not deposit the amount in cash with the above said bank branch.
On my asking the petitioner informed me that the prize bonds have been changed and amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been deposited in my account. The petitioner has not used my amount for his personal use."
9. When the statement of PW-1 is perused in juxtaposition with the charge-sheet dated 15.12.2000 it shall be crystal clear that wording of charge-sheet conveyed a different message than the actual happening and this very situation was minutely dealt with by the learned Labour Court in its impugned judgment.
10. Even RW-2 Syed Qaiser Abbas Naqvi confirms the statement of PW-1 Muhammad Bashir in the following terms:-{{URDU TEXT}}
11. Hence the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellant of 2008 SCM R 899 cannot be held to be applicable to the present case particularly keeping in view the well reasoned findings recorded by the learned Labour Court that the respondent Umeed Ali did not embezzle/misappropriated any amount.
12. So far the contentions of Umeed All respondent/appellant regarding his full-fledged exoneration without any minor penalty and with full back benefits is concerned, suffice it to say that some negligence on the part of Umeed All was found by the learned Labour Court and when an employee is found negligent then of course major penalty could not be imposed however, minor penalty shall be a sufficient one which according to the learned Labour Court was imposed on Umeed Ali as per recommendations of bank's inquiry committee and that is upheld.
13. There is another aspect of 50% back benefits granted by the learned Labour Court to the respondent Umeed Ali, it is held that when the reinstatement is made with even a minor penalty, it shall not be appropriate to burden the employer for granting him all the back benefits. Resultantly, to the extent of 50% back benefits granted by the learned Labour Court to respondent Umeed Ali, the judgment is modified, the respondent shall be reinstated into service but with a minor penalty of stoppage of three increments and without any back benefits.
For the reasons recorded above, this L.A. No. 127/2008 is disposed of in the above terms and L.A. No. 137/2008 is dismissed with on order as to costs.