' ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).--- This appeal calls in question the judgment dated 3-12- 2004 passed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No,7, Gujranwala whereby the grievance petition filed by the respondent was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay Benevolent Fund Grant as well as medical facilities to the respondent as prayed for from the date of his retirement and also in future as provided under the rules of the bank.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the respondent was employed as a Cashier in the appellant bank and eventually rose to the rank of Officer Grade-I (OG-I). While the respondent was in service, the appellant bank introduced an optional retirement scheme vide Circular No,P-1 NF-97/65 dated 7-8-1997. The option under the said scheme was exercisable till 30-9-1997. The respondent accepted the offer of the bank vide letter dated 29-9-1997 with a request that he may be retired w,e,f, 2-11-1997 when he would complete his 25 years service. The bank accordingly granted him retirement vide letter dated 4-10-1997 with all the benefits under the optional retirement scheme.
The respondent was however relieved of his duties on 10-10-1997 and his retirement took effect from the said date which was 20 days short of 25 years service instead of retiring him on 2-11-1997.
The respondent was denied the benefits of Benevolent Grant and that of the medical facility to which he was entitled under the scheme on the ground that his service was 20 days short of the qualifying period of 25 years service.
3. The respondent filed an appeal against the denial of these benefits which was not responded to despite numerous reminders and no decision was given thereon. The respondent then served a legal notice which was repudiated vide bank reply dated 6-8-2002.
4. The respondent thereafter served a notice upon the appellants bank and filed the grievance petition which was ultimately accepted vide the impugned judgment. The bank has impugned the aforesaid decision of the Labour Court in the instant appeal.
5. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
6. It is noteworthy that the bank administration afterwards issued a new Circular dated 1-7-2000 for the benefits of the bank employees wherein it was clarified in Item No,8 by means of an explanation with the following words "while computing length of service of an employee for the purpose of entitlement of B.F. Grant and medical facility the period of service of six months and above shall be accounted for a complete year". This made the entire situation clear and the objection relating to qualifying service of 25 years was resolved by the bank itself. It was therefore prayed that the respondent having served the bank faithfully, diligently and efficiently and had been instrumental in earning profits to the bank the grievance petition merited to be accepted,
7. The bank however contested the petition on certain technical grounds that it was barred by time and that the respondent was not a workman hence he could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent attempted to argue that the statement recorded before the learned Labour Court that he was a full-fledged Manager, cannot be taken as an admission of the respondent as it is visibly clear that he had no powers to hire and fire and the bank had failed to bring on record that he had ever recorded ACRs of his subordinates or had sanctioned loan to any one or any attribute of a Manager to the effect that he had been working as Manager independently.
9. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent had himself admitted in his cross-examination that he has been a full-fledged Manager not at one place rather at four places and he was supervising his officials under the instructions of the Zonal Office as such he was clearly not workman and was not entitled to seek relief from the Labour Court.
10. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
11. In this case it appears to be a sheer misfortune of the respondent that he plainly conceded that he was a full-fledged Manager and had the supervisory authority over his subordinates. In cross- examination he admits:--- "I have been serving the bank as full-fledged Manager of Melo Khokhar, Bhota Kharian and Jalal Pur Jattan branches. In Jalal Pur Jattan I served as, a Manager thrice.
' I supervise and manage the staff of the branches under the instructions of the Zonal Office. I also used to check their attendance."
12. A perusal of the above admission on the part of the respondent clearly establishes that he was not a workman otherwise his claim for Benevolent grant and medical facility was genuine and on very solid basis. Even the appellant bank during the proceedings of the case has not clearly denied these claims rather defended the case on mere technicalities.
13. In this view of the matter the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition.
The appeal therefore is accepted and the grievance petition filed by the respondent is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.