' These are 4 appeals 2 of which are directed against a decision of the learned Vth Labour Court, given on 20th August, 1980, dismissing the grievance petition filed by the Grindlays Bank Employees' Union, challenging the dismissal from service of a subordinate employee of the Bank by name Najmul Hassan, while the remaining 2 appeals are directed against a similar decision given by the learned Labour Court in respect of another subordinate employee of the Bank, by name Mohammad Ali. It is not clear why 2 separate appeals have been preferred in respect of each of the decision of the learned Labour Court. Possibly the intention was to advance additional grounds in support of the appeals. Since common issues are involved in all the 4 appeals they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this Order.
2. The facts which form the background of these appeals, shortly stated, are that Najmul Hassan and Mohammad Ali were employed as members of the subordinate staff in the respondent-Bank.
Both of them were dismissed from service on charges of refusal to prepare and serve tea to the officers of the Bank. The dismissal orders were passed after holding of domestic enquiries in respect of them and giving them a second show-cause notice. The contention of the 2 appellants is that as members of the subordinate staff they were not required nor it was a part of their duties to prepare and serve tea to the officers and staff of the respondent-Bank. This contention was rejected by the Management. Aggrieved by the orders of their dismissal from service, they filed grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court which rejected their grievance petitions, holding that it was a part of the duties of the appellants to prepare and serve tea to the officers of the Bank and that their dismissal from services was based on tangible evidence led in the domestic enquiry which was properly and fairly held.
3. Mr. S. J. Siddiqi, the learned counsel for the appellants, has assailed the 2 impugned decisions of the learned Labour Court and the orders of dismissal of the appellants mainly on the ground that it was not a part of the duty of the appellants to prepare and serve tea to the officers or the staff of the respondent-Bank. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the appointment letter of the appellants. However, the said letters merely indicate that the appellants were being appointed as members of the subordinate staff of the respondent-Bank but do not indicate the exact nature of the duties of the appellants. On the other hand, there is evidence of M. Jalal Din, Credit & Planning Coordinator of the respondent-Bank before the Enquiry Officer that it was part of the duties of the 2 appellants to prepare and serve tea to the officers and secretariat staff of the Bank. He is supported in this behalf by the 2 other witnesses examined during the domestic enquiry, namely, R.
C. D Silva and Mrs. Pereera, both of whom stated that the 2 appellants had been preparing tea for and serving it to the members of the Management and the secretariat staff since their appointment in the respondent-Bank. Support to the testimony of these witnesses is provided, in respect of Muhammad Ali, by the letter, dated 1st December, 1976, addressed to him by M. Jalal Din, informing him that not only it was a part of his duties to make and serve tea but in fact he had been performing this duty since 1973, and in the case of Najmul Hassan, the letter, dated 23rd December, 1976, from the Manager, Corporate Division, addressed to him, which indicates that though disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him for refusing to serve and prepare tea, the same were withdrawn as he had started re-performing such duties. It may also be pointed out that Mohammad Ali admittedly was being employed as Hammal and presumably Najmul Hassan was also employed in a similar capacity. It would fall within the normal duties of employees of this category to prepare and serve tea to officers. Finally, it may be mentioned that Najmul Hassan by a letter, dated 22nd June, 1978, had tendered an apology for not preparing and serving tea, thereby admitting the fact that it was a part of his duty to do so. I, therefore, am in agreement with the view taken by the learned Labour Court that it was a part of the duties of both the appellants to prepare and serve tea to officers and the secretariat staff of the respondent- Bank.
4. It was next contended by Mr. S. I. Siddiqi in respect of Najmul Hasan that the charge-sheet served upon him was unsigned, and consequently, the disciplinary proceedings based upon such charge- sheet are invalid. No doubt, the copy of the charge-sheet, dated 16th June, 1978, given to Najmul Hassan was not signed perhaps through inadvertence, as explained in his evidence before the learned Labour Court by the Bank's witness, M. Jalal Din, but I find that Najmul Hassan has acknowledged the receipt of the charge-sheet on the office copy of the charge-sheet. This office copy bears the initials of the Credit & Planning Coordinator, Mr. Jalal Din who was admittedly employer of both Najmul Hassan and Mohammad Ali. As such, notice of the misconduct alleged against Najmul Hassan was given to him, in writing, as required by law, and further such notice was given to him by his employer. More-admitted by Najmul Hassan, he was required to submit his explanation to the charge-sheet, dated 16th June, 1977. This letter of 3rd July, 1977 over, by the letter, dated 3rd July, 1977, receipt of which has been bears the signature of Mr. Jalal Din, the employer of Najmul Hassan. In the circumstances, there does appear to have been due compliance of the provisions of clause (4) of Standing Order 15 for bringing to the notice of the workman concerned the act of his misconduct. The mere fact that the copy of the charge-sheet given to appellant Najmul Hassan did not bear the signature of the employer or his authorized agent, cannot be considered to vitiate the proceedings, as Najmul Hassan was fully aware that the charge-sheet had been given to him by the employer.
5. I.Have gone through the enquiry papers and I find that full opportunity was given by the Enquiry Officer both to Najmul Hassan and Mohammad Ali, to defend themselves and that the evidence before the Enquiry Officer fully establishes their misconduct in refusing to carry out their lawful duties. The action of the Management in terminating their services, specially that of Najmul Hassan who offered an apology and apparently was prepared thereafter to perform the duty of preparing and serving tea may possibly be considered to be rather harsh, but the Labour Court are not empowered to interfere with penalties imposed by an employer on his workmen for acts of misconduct if such punishments are provided under the law.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would dismiss all the 4 appeals preferred by the appellants in limine.