' ABDUL GHIAS NOUSHERWANI (MEMBER).- Short facts of the case according to grievance application are that respondent/appellant joined the Messrs Habib Bank in the year 1990 and was posted at different places lastly transferred in Habib Bank Shar-eIqbal Branch Quetta as Assistant Manager. It is stated that the applicant/respondent is a worker by the nature of his duty. It is further stated that on 4-7-2007 and 15-8-2008 he received show cause on the charge of misconduct. Such show cause notices were also issued to the bank officials Saeed-ur-Rehman, Anwar Baloch, Khalid Aman Kasi besides the applicant. After domestic inquiry against the respondent/ applicant and other officials on 14-5-2011 he was compulsory retired. It is further stated that against such charges a Reference No,2 of 2009 filed before the Judge Accountability Court-I Balochistan Quetta, wherein the respondent/applicant and one Khalid Aman Kasi were granted pardon whereas Saeed-ur- Rehman and Sheikh Abid-ul-Karim entered into plea bargain which was accepted by the learned Court whereas the respondent/applicant and Khalid Aman Kasi were acquitted by means of order dated 3-12-2010. The respondent/applicant during issuances of show cause notice approached the Civil Court which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction where after approached the Learned Labour Court but the same was withdrawn ultimately issued grievance notice and filed grievance application before learned Labour Court where stay was granted which was vacated by this Tribunal and there after the grievance application was allowed by Learned Labour Court hence this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for appellant contended that an inquiry was conducted by the authorities according to law and in view of inquiry report the respondent was retired compulsory. Further submitted that the respondent was co-accused in NAB reference though he was granted pardon but he has committed the offenses of embezzlement and fraudulent transaction in the bank so he is a convicted person and not entitle for reinstatement in the bank. The learned counsel for respondent on the other hand contended that the inquiry has not been conducted in proper manner. Secondly contended that the respondent has been acquitted in the NAB reference by means of order dated 3-12-2010. Lastly contended that the Learned Labour Court properly resolved each and every issue.
3. It appears that the inquiry has been conducted by Muhammad Mujtaba Bari V.P. And Inquiry Officer whereas the inquiry report has been tendered by Allah Noor Tareen Regional Manager Administration which are photostate copies and also not attested. Mr. Allah Noor Tareen was neither the member of committee nor the report has been prepared in his presence. In this respect honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in reported Judgment in PLD 2002 Supreme Court 84 held, "Photo copy of documents.--- Such document cannot be taken into consideration merely by tendering a document in evidence the same has no evidentiary value unless its contents are proved according to law"
' In another Judgment reported in 2005 YLR 2007 held, "Copy without proving the case for secondary evidence is inadmissible in evidence"
' Meaning thereby that the inquiry report has not been submitted in the light of Article 75 of Qanun- e-Shahadat Order therefore the same cannot be considered according to law.
4. The main argument of the learned counsel for appellant was that the respondent is an accomplice as a person supported to have directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to the offence and he is a guilty associate. The respondent in proceedings in NAB reference has been granted pardon under section 337, Cr.P.C. Which is reproduced as under, "337. Tender of pardon to accomplice.-- (1) In the case of any offense triable exclusively by the High Court or Court of Sessions, or any offence punishable with the imprisonment which may extend to ten years, or any offence punishable under section 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, or any offence under any of the following sections of the Pakistan Penal Code, namely, sections 216-A, 369, 401, 435 and 477-A, 30 [officer incharge of the prosecution in the District] may, at any stage of the investigation or inquiry into, or the trail of the offence, with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to the offence, tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether, as principle or abettor, in the commission thereof: (1A)............................................................................................................................
[(2) Every person accepting a tender under this section shall be examined as a witness in the subsequent trail, if any.]"
5. The learned Accountability Court-I Balochistan Quetta acquitted the respondent along with one accused Khalid Aman Kasi by means of order dated 3-12-2010 which is reproduced as under:--- "The accused Khalid Aman Kasi and Azizullah Laghari are declared approvers of . This case by the NAB authorities Balochistan. Therefore, statements were recorded as witnesses. Learned Special Prosecutor stated that the statement of accused Khalid Aman Kasi and Azizullah Laghari as witness are satisfactory and supports the prosecution case, therefore, he has no objection if accused persons are acquitted from charge of this case. Due to above said reasons the above said accused persons are acquitted from the charge."
' The learned counsel for respondent in this context referred a judgment reported in 1998 SCM R 1993 wherein held, "We are inclined to uphold the above view in as much as all acquittals even if these are based on benefit of doubt are honorable for the reason that the prosecution has not succeeded to prove their cases against the accused on the strength of evidence of unimpeachable character. It may be noted that there are cases in which the judgment are recorded on the basis of compromise between the parties and the accused are acquitted in consequence thereof. What shall be the nature of such acquittals? All acquittals are certainly honorable, there can be no acquittals, which may be said to be dishonorable the law has not drawn any distinction between these types of acquittals."
' The learned counsel further referred a judgment reported in 2001 SCM R 274 wherein held, "Acquittal---All acquittals are "honorable" and there can be no acquittal which can be termed as "dishonorable"
7. Taking into consideration the strong arguments of the learned counsel for appellant with regard to approver and conviction it has to be seen the legal meaning of the same. In Black's Law Dictionary approver define, "One who offers proof; esp., a criminal who confesses and testifies against one or more accomplices."
' In the light of above definition it is necessary to see the meaning of confession which has been defined in above dictionary, "A criminal suspect's oral or written acknowledgment of guilt, often including details about the crime.
' A confession is an acknowledgement in express words, by the accused in a criminal case, of the truth of the main fact charged or of some essential part of it.
' The distinction between admissions in criminal cases and confessions by the accused is the distinction in effect between admissions of fact from which the guilt of the accused may be inferred by the jury and the express admission of guilt itself."
' In above definition of approver and confession which ultimately effect the conviction and it is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as under, "Conviction: The act or process of judicially finding someone guilty of a crime; the state of having been proved guilty.
' Abiding Conviction: A settled conviction; a definite conviction based on a thorough examination of the case.
' Summary Conviction: A conviction of a person for a violation or minor misdemeanor as the result of a trail before a magistrate setting without a jury"
' Pardon defined in Black's Law Dictionary as under-- "The act or an instance of officially nullifying punishment or other legal consequences of a crime."
8. In my humble view nutshell result of above definition is that an accused who has been granted pardon legally release from the penalty of an offence or forgiveness of a serious offence or offender.
9. In view of nature of the case in respect of approver nothing mentioned anywhere that after granting of pardon the approver has to be convicted unless he failed to fulfil the condition of pardon. The learned counsel for appellant relied upon a judgment reported in PLD 1979 Supreme Court page 53 wherein the approvers were convicted. From perusal of this judgment under title Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. The State the approvers failed to fulfil the condition of pardon and did not disclose the real facts therefore they were convicted but in case in hand the respondent along with Khalid Aman Kasi fulfilled the condition of pardon. The learned counsel for appellant referred a judgment in 2004 YLR 531 but it is not helpful to him for the reason that in referred judgment it is held by honorable Shariat Court (AJK) that approver was an accused who had accepted to become a witness of the occurrence against other accused person being an accomplice in the case and he was to be kept in detention until the termination of the trial and he was entitled to acquittal within the term of section 339-A, Cr.P.C. Before the final judgment. The learned counsel lastly referred a judgment reported as 1993 PCr.LJ 672 but this judgment also does not favour, the learned counsel for the reason that in this judgment the learned Session Judge did not grant the pardon to one accused and his application was rejected against which the Honorable High Court of Karachi in revision concluded as under, "Application for tendering pardon had support of all the legal heirs of deceased and same should have been allowed especially when it was not opposed by the prosecution---Application to tender pardon to accomplice was allowed and Session Judge trying the case was directed to grant such pardon or order District Magistrate concerned to tender pardon on such condition which were necessary---Accomplice would, however, remain in custody until termination of trial."
10. The learned counsel for appellant referred the judgment of learned Labour Court and this Tribunal in case of Khalid Awan and Saeed-u-Rehman. Saeed-u-Rehman and Khalid Awan entered into plea bargain by depositing the full amount of the embezzlement mentioned in the reference and the plea bargain was allowed and they were convicted and disqualified for holding public office, disqualified to contest election and also disqualified for grant of any financial facilities for a period of ten years.
11. In above mentioned judgment on plea bargain whereof they were convicted the learned Labour Court dismissed the appeals of Saeed-URehman and Khalid Awan. However Khalid Awan challenged said order before this Tribunal which also met the, same fate. Therefore such contention and references of learned counsel for appellant are not helpfull.
12. The learned counsel slightly objected that the respondent/ applicant was not a worker rather he was Grade-III Officer as Assistant Manager. This point has been decided by the learned Labour Court while deciding Issue .No,1 in view of a reported judgment 1998 PLC 390 wherein specifically mentioned that low Grade Bank Manager or Officer with no power of hire and fire of making appointment and even granting leaves to subordinates was considered to be workman. The representative of bank neither stated in his affidavit nor in cross-examination that the respondent/applicant having such power mentioned herein above. Furthermore in cross- examination of respondent/applicant no such suggestion was put to him nor his contention being a worker has been denied/rebutted anywhere in evidence. Even otherwise it is settled principle laid down by the superior courts that bank employees of Grade-I, Grade-II or Grade-III fall within the definition of IE workman.
13, Summing up, I am least impressed by the above point agitated before this Tribunal by the learned counsel for appellant. Furthermore no irregularities or illegalities pointed out in order impugned by the learned counsel meaning thereby that judgment of the learned Labour Court is neither arbitrary nor perverse to invite interference by this Tribunal in appeal. Consequently the appeal is dismissed the judgment impugned dated 19-3-2012 in Case No 45 of 2011 passed by the learned District and Session Judge 1st Labour Court Balochistan Quetta is upheld. In view of the circumstances of case the parties are left to bear their own cost.
14. The copy of order along with original record of trail court is sent to trial court. Case after completion be consigned to record.