' ABDUL GHIAS NOUSHERWANI (MEMBER).--- Through this appeal the appellant assailed the judgment dated 29-3-2012 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge 1st Labour Court wherein the grievance petition of respondent/applicant was allowed.
2. In the first round of litigation the grievance petition of respondent/applicant was also allowed by the Learned Labour Court by means of order/judgment dated 23-2-2009. On appeal bearing L.A.
No,14 of 2009 the case was remanded by this tribunal for rewriting of the judgment through order/judgment dated 8-11.2010 but the then Learned Presiding Officer 1st Labour Court Balochistan has not complied with the remand order and regretted for rewriting of the judgment by means of order/judgment dated 28-2-2011. The respondent/applicant assailed the order dated 28-2-2011 before this Tribunal and under the circumstances of the case the case was again remanded for compliance of order dated 8-11-2010 of this tribunal to the Learned Labour Court whereof after necessary proceedings the grievance application of respondent/applicant was allowed hence this appeal.
3. According to grievance petition of applicant/respondent he was appointed as cashier on 2-1- 1993 and served the bank with his best efforts and honesty and promoted the business of the bank.
He further stated that lastly he was transferred to Muslim Commercial Bank Cantt. Branch Quetta as accountant but the nature of work has not been changed. It is further stated that on 15-7-2004 he was charge-sheeted on the ground that irregularities committed by the manager of the branch and the applicant/respondent did not inform the higher authorities of the bank which has been followed by supplementary charge dated 23-4-2004 and second supplementary charge dated 15- 9-2004. The reply of respondent/applicant was not considered satisfactory therefore a letter of inquiry was issued on 10-11-2004. Thereafter inquiry was conducted which was resulted to the dismissal of respondent dated 13-6-2005 against which a mercy petition/departmental appeal has been filed on 8-7-2005 which was rejected on 8-12-2005 and thereafter grievance petition was filed on 13-2- 2006.
4. The learned counsel for appellant contended that the respondent was accountant and does not fall within the category of worker/workman therefore the judgment of the Learned Labour Court was without jurisdiction. Secondly contended that the respondent/applicant did not serve the grievance notice under the mandatory provisions and the Learned Labour Court wrongly treated the departmental appeal as a grievance notice which is contrary to his judgment in the case of Javed Iqbal where the same has not been accepted as grievance notice. Lastly contended that the inquiry was conducted according to law and inquiry report was submitted before the court by the Inquiry Officer. The learned counsel for respondent on the other hand contended that in the case of respondent/applicant eight other officials/officers of the bank separately also charge-sheeted but neither the copy of their charge-sheets nor final decisions produced by the appellant. The learned counsel further contended that the manager of the branch who was main accused of the case in hand but no document in respect of his inquiry was produced in the proceedings. Next contended that the vouchers which were the main documents produced during inquiry has not been signed by the respondent. Further contended that before and during inquiry the respondent requested for supply of necessary documents and examination of such records several time but nothing was supply to him which is the violation of mandatory rules of inquiry. Lastly submitted that the respondent having no power to appoint, dismiss or grant leave or refuse grant leave and grant loan to any one therefore defiantly he was a worker/workman according to Labour Laws.
5.Before taking into consideration the points agitated by learned counsel of appellant it is un- understandable that along with memo. Of appeal a huge number of documents has been filed which contains from pages Nos.19 to 592 but a single document of above mentioned has not purpose of section 5 are notified. Then learned counsel referred to Notification dated 20-4-2010 where Noor Muhammad, respondent No,4 is stated to be representing Port Workers Federation of Pakistan. Admittedly, Port Workers Federation of Pakistan is not one of the organizations of the employees listed in the Notification dated 16-12-2009. Learned counsel for respondents referred to Annexure R/6 (with Counter Affidavit) where office-bearers of Pakistan Trade Union Federation (Moor Muhammad Group) are notified by Directorate of Labour, Government of Sindh. Admittedly, name of respondent No,2 does not figure amongst list of such office beareRs, Contention of counsel for respondents was that Pakistan Trade Union Federation is listed at Sr.6 and respondent No,6, according to him, is life and soul of Pakistan Trade Unions Federation (Noor Muhammad Group). That might be so but under section 5 only a person whose name is submitted by the organization of employees (or employers) for that purpose can be made a member of Governing Body. In the Notification dated May 4, 2010 respondent No,4 is stated to be nominee of Port Workers Federation of Pakistan. Now Port Workers Federation of Pakistan may or may not be a Constituent of Pakistan Trade Unions Federation of Pakistan, and respondent No,4 may and may not be office bearer of PTUF but at least Notification dated 4-5-2010 indicates that respondent No,4 was nominated by Port Workers Federation of Pakistan which admittedly is not one of the recognized organizations of workeRs, Therefore, appointment of respondent No,4 cannot be stated to be in accordance with provision of the law.
21. Contention of Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan was that respondent No,4 was not holding public office. Learned counsel relied upon Sajid Hussain's case (supra). This was a case of person who had been granted scholarship and it was challenged in a writ of quo warranto and it was observed as under:---
10. In the principle deducible from the above judgments appear to be a writ of quo warranto can only be issued in respect of a public office:--
(i) Public office means an office which involves delegation of some of the sovereign functions of the Government either executive, legislative or judicial to be exercised by the holder for the public benefit. Unless his powers of this nature he is not a public officer.
(ii) Both at the time of institution of the writ petition and on the date of decision it must be shown that the holder suffered from any disqualification to hold the public office.
(iii) The Court may test bona fides of the relator to see if he has come with clean hands. Reference may be made to 2009 SCMR 1299.
(iv) A writ of quo warranto is not to be issued as a matter of course on sheer technicalities on a doctrinaire approach.
(v) Every civil servant or every person in the service of Pakistan does not necessarily hold a public office. If the office is of a petty nature like that of a considerable the Court may refuse to grant the writ (AIR 1952 Nagpur 330):
(vi) In order to maintain a writ of quo warranto the petitioner needed not to be an aggrieved person.
11. What has been done through the impugned order is that respondent No,5 has been conferred a scholarship for undertaking studies leading to acquisition of degree of Ph.D. A scholarship for studies is not a public office because no exercise of sovereign powers is involved by the incumbent when he undertakes such studies, therefore, this petition must fail on this ground. If a student is wrongfully admitted in a college it may furnish ground to a student denied admission become in certiorari but cannot be subject to writ of quo warranto because one just studying is not exercising any part of sovereign power."
22. This case is clearly distinguishable. Learned counsel next relied upon Munawar Ali Pathan's case (supra). Facts of the case were that respondent No,3 held office of District Officer (Education).
Office of E.D.O. (Education) fell vacant and D.C.O. Allowed respondent to look after charge of E.D.O.
And against this, petition was filed. It was held that office was a public office and D.C.O. Was not competent and writ was issued. Learned counsel next relied upon Dr. Kamal Hussain's case (supra) where in respect of writ of quo warranto it was observed that writ of quo warranto cannot issue as a matter of course on sheer technicalities on a doctrinaire approach. Lastly learned counsel relied upon Dr. Bushra Ashiq Siddiqui's case (supra). In this case post involved was of Assistant Professor Microbiology and question was whether respondent possessed prescribed qualification or not. It was contended that since to provide medical education is duty of the State, the respondent by teaching the same was discharging a function of State. Contention was not accepted by a Division Bench of this Court.
23. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Farhat Ali Khan's case (supra).
Farhat Ali Khan was appointed as Judicial Member Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. His employment was challenged on the ground that he did not possess qualification of being advocate for prescribed period. Writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge on the ground that it suffered by laches. However, Division Bench took the view that holding 'of office is a recurring cause and, therefore, petition in nature of quo warranto could be maintained. Appeal was allowed by the Division Bench and Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel also relied upon Ch. Muneer Ahmed's case (supra). Respondent as returned candidate from a National Assembly constituency and writ petition in the nature of quo warranto was filed, on the ground that respondent No,1 possessed a bogus B.A. Degree which he had procured by fraudulent means. Writ petition was dismissed by holding that respondent No,1 did not suffer for any disqualification.
Farhat Ali Khan's second case (supra) was one in which review application was dismissed. So basically question falls down to whether a member of Governing Body of Sindh Employees Security Institution holds a public office or not. Respondent No,4 is Member of Governing Body of SESSI.
Under section 4 of the Ordinance, 1965 general direction and affairs of Institution vest in the Governing Body. Appointment of Member Governing Body is made under section 5, Institution under section 20 has power to collect contribution at the rate of 6%. And thereafter it provided in Ordinance of 1965 that decision on the complaints, questtion and dispute are to be decided by the Institution. Power of review is also conferred on the Institution under Section 58. Member and servant of institution are treated as public servants and any arrears of contribution can be recovered as land review. In S.M. Wali Ahmed Chowdhury and another v. Mahfuzal Haq Chowdhury, Chairman, District Board, Chittagong and others (PLD 1957 Dacca 209) writ of quo warrant was issued in respect of a Member District Board. Therefore, Member Managing Committee is held to be holder of public office and writ of quo warrant can be issued.
24. As far as respondent No,7 is concerned, he is appointed as Director Administration. In the Abdul Haq Kauser and another v. Alim Akhtar Shah and 2 others, (1989 CLC 1907) writ of quo warrant was issued against General Manager Administration of Karachi Port Trust. Karachi Port Trust is a statutory institution just as Social Employees, Social Security Institution is. Consequently, it is held that respondent No,7 is holding a public office.
24. Respondent No,7 was working as Social Security Officer in BS-16 in the Institution (SESSI) when Sindh Workers Welfare Board appointed him as Administrative Officer BS-17 for a period ending on 30th June, 2009 in Kidney Centre Landhi with immediate effect. It was temporary/contract appointment for a period ending on 30th June, 2009. This appointment was made on 14th July, 2008. It is stated in the petition that when Kidney Centre was transferred from Workers Welfare Board to SESSI respondent No,7 was also transferred and appointed as Deputy Director at Hyderabad in BS-18 and then took over charge as Director Administration, BS-19. In the comments all that is stated is that Para 21 as worded is denied. No document whatsoever has been placed on record to establish as to when respondent No,7 was promoted from BS-16 to BS-17 and then from BS-17 to BS-18 and then from BS-18 to BS-19. Appointment of respondent No,7 by the Sindh Workers Welfare Board was a contract appointment valid till 30-6-2009 and, therefore, after 30th June, 2009 he had to revert back to his post of BS-16. Consequently, it is held that appointment of respondent No,7 as Director Administration BS-19 is without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.
26. Contention of Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem was that the Managing Committee was illegally constituted as there was, according to him, and according to the above discussion, one person illegally appointed on the Managing Committee. Complete answer to such contention of the learned counsel exists in section 78 of the Ordinance of 1965 which Section is as under:--- "73. Bar on benefits under other laws.--- When a person is entitled to any of the benefits provided by this Ordinance, he shall not be entitled to any similar benefit under any other law."
Therefore, even if one of the Members of Managing Committee is wrongly appointed it does not nullify decisions made by the Managing Committee. Moreover, such actions are protected by now well established de-facto doctrine.
28. In view of the above discussion we do not think that it would be necessary for us to go into the question as to how may vacancies were approved and how many vacancies were advertised and how many persons were recruited. This leaves us with contention of learned counsel regarding quota for children of employees of the Institution. In this regard Articles 25(1) and 27 of the Constitution may be referred to;
25. Equality of citizens.-- (1) All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law.
27. Safeguard against discrimination in service.--- (1) No citizen otherwise qualified for appointment in the service of Pakistan shall be discriminated against in respect of any such appointment on the ground only of race, religion, caste, sex, residence or place of birth: Provided that, for a period not exceeding forty years from the commencing day, Posts may be reserved for persons belonging to any class or area to secure their adequate representation in the service of Pakistan: Provided further that, in the interest of the said service, specified posts or services may be reserved for members of either sex if such posts or services entail the performance of duties and functions which cannot be adequately performed by members of the other sex: (Provided also that under-representation of any class or area in the service of Pakistan may be redressed in such manner as may be determined by an Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).)
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall prevent any Provincial Government, or any local or other authority in a Province, from prescribing, in relation to any post or class of service under that Government or authority, conditions as to residence in the Province, for a period not exceeding three years, prior to appointment under that Government or authority."
29. Article 25 mandates that all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law. In view of this, son of employee of Institution is equal to son of one who is not such employee.
Under Article 27 while posts could be reserved for any class or area but the purpose of reservation is to secure their adequate representation and not to confer benefit on existing employees.
Reservation of seats militates against equality and constitutes discrimination against other citizens of Pakistan who may be equally, or better, qualified but door is barred in their faces because they are not sons of previous or present employees. Any reservation of quota by Governing Body in violation of provision laid down in the Constitution cannot be allowed to stand.
30. Result of the above discussion is that appointment of respondent No,4 as Member Governing Body is declared to be as without authority of law. Appointment of respondent No,7 as Director Administration is also declared to be without any lawful authority and respondent No,7 is directed to be posted in accordance with his grade which is BS-16. This Constitutional petition is disposed of in the above terms. Listed application is also disposed of.
Order accordingly.
2013 PLC 102 [Balochistan Labour Appellate Tribunal] Before Abdul Ghias Nousherwani, Member MCB BANK LIMITED through Attorney versus MUHAMMAD IMRAN BHATTI Labour Appeal No,13 of 2012, decided on 9th August, 2012.
Balochistan Industrial Relations Act (XIII of 2010)- ----Ss. 2(dd), 41 & 55---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(i) & S.0.15---Dismissal from service---Grievance petition---Status of workman, determination of---Employee was dismissed from service after charge-sheeting him and holding inquiry against him on the charge that he did not inform the higher authorities about the irregularities committed by the branch Manager of the bank---Grievance petition filed by the employee against order of his dismissal was accepted by the Labour Court---Employer contended that employee was an accountant and did not fall within the category of workman/worker, therefore, his grievance petition was not maintainable; that the employee did not serve the grievance notice under the mandatory provisions; and that the Labour Court was not justified to treat the departmental appeal as a grievance notice--Validity---Although employee was working as an accountant on his last posting, but initially he was appointed as cashier with a pay of Rs,995 per month, which pay did not seem to be that of an officer---Secondly no power of attorney was executed in favour of the employee for showing that he was empowered to exercise discretion and could take important decisions---Employee was not heading an establishment of the bank independently---Labour Court, in circumstances, had rightly declared the employee as worker--- Total theme behind the grievance notice was that the employee before approaching the court should bring his grievance in the notice of his employer by himself, or shop steward or Collective Bargaining Agent---Though in the present case, in the departmental appeal, the President was addressed, but through General Manager being the appointing authority---Such appeal came in process through the General Manager who automatically received the information, grievance notice of the employee---Aim and theme behind the grievance notice became completed when the departmental appeal was received by the appointing authority of the employee i,e, General Manager---Departmental appeal could be treated as grievance notice--- ' Charge and inquiry in the case was conducted by the employer of their own and mandatory provisions of law of inquiry had been violated by not providing the relevant documents to the employee---Regarding allegation against the employee that he had not informed the higher authorities about the illegal activities committed by the manager, no rules or law or any direction was produced by the employer to show that employee being an accountant had any power to convey the illegal activities of the manager (who was his immediate boss) to the higher authorities---Fact that a subordinate would have such power/authority to report the illegal activities of his immediate boss to the higher authorities was against common sense---Allegation in the charge-sheet had been committed before the transfer of the employee in concerned branch, and employer bank had not suffered any financial loss--- Judgment/order passed by the Labour Court, was upheld and appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
[pp. 104, 105, 107, 108, 109] A, B, C, D, E, F & G 1985 SCM R 1516; SBLR 2007 Sindh 800 and NLR 2007 (Labour) 141 distinguished.
2010 TD (Lahore) 2017 and 2002 SCM R 943 ref. Sabir Sardar for Petitioner.
Abdul Rasheed Khokhar for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 26th July, 2012.
' ABDUL GHIAS NOUSHERWANI (MEMBER).--- Through this appeal the appellant assailed the judgment dated 29-3-2012 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge 1st Labour Court wherein the grievance petition of respondent/applicant was allowed.
2. In the first round of litigation the grievance petition of respondent/applicant was also allowed by the Learned Labour Court by means of order/judgment dated 23-2-2009. On appeal bearing L.A.
No,14 of 2009 the case was remanded by this tribunal for rewriting of the judgment through order/judgment dated 8-11.2010 but the then Learned Presiding Officer 1st Labour Court Balochistan has not complied with the remand order and regretted for rewriting of the judgment by means of order/judgment dated 28-2-2011. The respondent/applicant assailed the order dated 28-2-2011 before this Tribunal and under the circumstances of the case the case was again remanded for compliance of order dated 8-11-2010 of this tribunal to the Learned Labour Court whereof after necessary proceedings the grievance application of respondent/applicant was allowed hence this appeal.
3. According to grievance petition of applicant/respondent he was appointed as cashier on 2-1- 1993 and served the bank with his best efforts and honesty and promoted the business of the bank.
He further stated that lastly he was transferred to Muslim Commercial Bank Cantt. Branch Quetta as accountant but the nature of work has not been changed. It is further stated that on 15-7-2004 he was charge-sheeted on the ground that irregularities committed by the manager of the branch and the applicant/respondent did not inform the higher authorities of the bank which has been followed by supplementary charge dated 23-4-2004 and second supplementary charge dated 15- 9-2004. The reply of respondent/applicant was not considered satisfactory therefore a letter of inquiry was issued on 10-11-2004. Thereafter inquiry was conducted which was resulted to the dismissal of respondent dated 13-6-2005 against which a mercy petition/departmental appeal has been filed on 8-7-2005 which was rejected on 8-12-2005 and thereafter grievance petition was filed on 13-2- 2006.
4. The learned counsel for appellant contended that the respondent was accountant and does not fall within the category of worker/workman therefore the judgment of the Learned Labour Court was without jurisdiction. Secondly contended that the respondent/applicant did not serve the grievance notice under the mandatory provisions and the Learned Labour Court wrongly treated the departmental appeal as a grievance notice which is contrary to his judgment in the case of Javed Iqbal where the same has not been accepted as grievance notice. Lastly contended that the inquiry was conducted according to law and inquiry report was submitted before the court by the Inquiry Officer. The learned counsel for respondent on the other hand contended that in the case of respondent/applicant eight other officials/officers of the bank separately also charge-sheeted but neither the copy of their charge-sheets nor final decisions produced by the appellant. The learned counsel further contended that the manager of the branch who was main accused of the case in hand but no document in respect of his inquiry was produced in the proceedings. Next contended that the vouchers which were the main documents produced during inquiry has not been signed by the respondent. Further contended that before and during inquiry the respondent requested for supply of necessary documents and examination of such records several time but nothing was supply to him which is the violation of mandatory rules of inquiry. Lastly submitted that the respondent having no power to appoint, dismiss or grant leave or refuse grant leave and grant loan to any one therefore defiantly he was a worker/workman according to Labour Laws.
4. Before taking into consideration the points agitated by learned counsel of appellant it is un- understandable that along with memo. Of appeal a huge number of documents has been filed which contains from pages Nos.19 to 592 but a single document of above mentioned has not been relied upon or referred by the learned, counsel of appellant during the course of arguments with connection of any agitated point.
6. The main ground of appeal agitated by the learned counsel for appellant that the respondent being an accountant does not fall within the category of workman/worker. It reveals that the respondent was appointed on 30-12-1992 as cashier with pay Rs,995 per month with effect from 2- 1-1993 on pay scale No IV. However the learned counsel for appellant contended that later on he was promoted as accountant but no such documents neither produced by the appellant nor available on record. Verbally it came on record that the respondent on his last posting was working as accountant. The learned counsel in support of his contention referred a reported judgment 1985 SCM R 1516 wherein the facts of the case were quite different to one in the hand, for the reason that in reported judgment employee was appointed as an accountant holding power of attorney executed' in favour of such employee by bank showing that powers conferred on and functions thereby required to be perform by employee could neither be termed as manual nor clerical work and involved exercise of discretion and taking of important decisions. In case in hand though the respondent on his last posting was working as accountant but initially he was appointed as cashier with pay Rs,995 per month and this pay did not seem to be the pay of an officer. Secondly no power of attorney executed in his favour for showing that he was empowered to exercise of discretion and taking of important decisions. However the' learned counsel for appellant stressed that the respondent was inter branch signatories. From perusal of this document i,e, list of inter branch signatories no power conferred upon the signatories rather it is an information and acknowledgment to the. Bank .Officials that such persons were working in the bank/branch with such signature. The next judgment referred by the learned counsel for appellant referred in 2010 TD (Lahore) 2017 wherein held that the nature of work can be determine through evidence produced by the parities.
7. The learned counsel 'for appellant contended that the Learned Labour Court declared the respondent as worker on the principle "no power of hire and fire" which is not correct under the relevant laws. In support of his contention he referred a judgment reported in SBLR 2007 Sindh 800 wherein the employee as Officer Grade II has been heading a department of respondent establishment independently and supervising the work of at least five persons having' no power of hire and fire and according to'power of attorney executed in his favour tends to show that he was not primarily employed-as a workman doing manual or clerical skilled or unskilled work but in case in hand the respondent in the establishment of bank neither heading a department and supervising the work of at least of five persons nor power of attorney executed in his favour by the bank. In this regard another un successful attempt made by learned counsel for appellant by referring a reported judgment in NLR 2007 (Labour) 141 where it is held that no doubt employee did not have the power of hire and fire in nature of job as performed by him and evident from the record including the power of attorney in his favour this is also not useful like above mentioned authorities to appellant for the reason that no power of attorney executed in favour of respondent tend to show that he was not primarily employed as a workman doing manual or clerical skilled or unskilled work. However as it is held in this judgment that the nature of work can be determined by the evidence produced by the parities. Now the same will be discussed.
8. Respondent/applicant in his affidavit parrated the story of grievance petition i,e, the facts of his service, show cause, inquiry letter and proceedings of inquiry letter of his dismissal including departmental appeal. In cross-examination he admitted that all vouchers and cheques of the bank has to be signed by him and manager and duplicate keys of strong room was also in his custody. He admitted that he marked his initial in attendance register.
9. The representative of the bank Mr. Muhammad Umar Magsi appeared and in his affidavit supported the claim of bank. In cross examination he admitted that after relive of respondent from Cantt branch this case came in picture and Miss Nazish took the charge of accountant and thereafter general manager Javed Bhatti married to her. To reply a question he stated, appointment letter To another uestion he replied, {{URDU TEXT}} Further stated that, From perusal of above mentioned statements and cross-examination of representative of bank it is crystal clear that the respondent was not heading an establishment of the bank independently and supervising at least five persons and holding any power of attorney showing that the respondent is empowered for important decisions of the matter of the bank. Therefore the Learned Labour Court rightly declared the respondent as worker.
10. The learned counsel for appellant contended that the respondent/applicant did not serve the grievance notice properly and the Learned Labour Court wrongly considered the departmental appeal as grievance notice. In support of his contention he referred a judgment reported in 2002 SCM R 943 wherein the grievance notice has been served by the employee to the President of the bank who was not his appointing authority meaning thereby that grievance notice should be served to the appointing authority. In case in hand departmental appeal has been filled by the respondent/applicant which was considered by the Learned Labour Court as grievance notice against which this point agitated by the learned counsel for appellant. From perusal of record it appears that the respondent/applicant initially appointed on 2-1-1993 by general manager Muslim Commercial Bank and his departmental appeal addressed to the president Muslim Commercial Bank through general manager Muslim Commercial Bank. Now the question arise that whether the departmental appeal in question was a valid information of grievance of the employee to the notice of his employer? The total theme behind the grievance notice is that the employee before approaching the court should bring his grievance in the notice of his employer by himself or shop steward or Collective bargaining agent. Though in departmental appeal the president was addressed but through general manager being the appointing authority. Naturally such appeal came in process through the general manager who automatically received the information grievance notice of employee. Therefore the aim and theme behind the grievance notice became completed when the departmental appeal received by the appointing authority of the employee i,e, general manager. The other point in the argument of learned counsel for appellant that the departmental appeal cannot be treated as grievance notice. The Honorable High Court of Balochistan in a recent judgment dated 2-2-2012 in C.P. No,54 of 2011 held, "The departmental appeal of the respondent No, 1 can be treated as grievance notice in view of principle laid down in the case of Nadeem Ahmed Qureshi v. Habib Bank Limited 2009 PLC 160.
In view of above citation the departmental appeal can be treated as grievance notice. Therefore this contention is not sustainable in the eye lc of law.
11. The last and important point of argument of the learned counsel for appellant was about the inquiry conducted according to him in the light of law. The charge sheet dated 15-7-2004 is related to the period from 21-4-2002 to 15-9-2003. Apparently irregularities committed in the bank from serial Nos.2(I) to (XI) did not pertain to the periOd mentioned above rather these irregularities were happened before the taken over the charge/arrival of, the respondent in the bank. The inquiry officer namely Mr. Muhammad Anjum in cross-examination admitted that referred 27 ~ different vouchers and cheques were not signed by the respondent. Further in cross-examination admitted that {{URDU TEXT}} Similarly the representative of bank Mr,' Muhammad Umar Magsi in cross-examination admitted, In reply to another question he admitted, {{URDU TEXT}} Furthermore record reveals that on 17-7-2004, 25-8-2004 and 20-9-2004 the respondent applied for the relevant documents but nothing had been supplied to him meaning thereby that the charge and inquiry was conducted on their own and mandatory provisions of law of inquiry has been violated by not providing the relevant documents to the respondent which has been admitted by the inquiry officer as well as the representative of the bank in their cross-examination before the Learned trial court.
12. The entire charge has been labeled against the respondent on the following ground:- "All the above fraudulent activities of Mr. Athar were committed in conivance with you as such you concealed the facts and did not inform the higher authorities. "
It is not known that how the inquiry was conducted against such allegations against the manager wherein the manager has been terminated. Though no record is available but it comes verbally on record that the all loss of the bank has been deposited by that manager. So far as the allegation against the respondent that he has not informed the higher authorities about the illegal activities committed by the manager is concerned no such rules or law or any direction produced by the appellant that the accountant had any power under any direction to convey the illegal activities of the manager (who was his immediate boss) to the higher authorities. However the representative of the bank Mr. Muhammad Umar Magsi in cross-examination stated that, appointment LI(')Lcz terms and condition {{URDU TEXT}} ' Though this answer is one of a routine but if the witness denied that such orders has not been seen by him than in addition or voluntary he has to explain such terms and conditions or law.
Furthermore it is against the common sense that a subordinate having such power/authority to report the illegal activities of his immediate boss to the higher authority. The allegations mentioned in charge-sheets, manner of conducting inquiry and admission of inquiry officer that 27 vouchers bears no signatures of respondent. Further as pointed out earlier that in charge-sheet dated 15-7- 2004 at serial Nos.2(I) to (XI) the allegation has been committed before the transfer/arrival of the respondent particularly the bank suffered no financial lose, therefore with utmost efforts, I could not find myself in agreement with such points agitated by the learned counsel for appellant meaning thereby that I am least impressed by the ' points agitated before this Tribunal in appeal.
Consequently the judgment / order dated 29-3-2012 passed by Learned District and Session Judge 1st Labour Court Quetta in Case No 2 of 2012 is up held and appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost.
13. The copy of order along with original record of trail court be sent to trial court. Case after completion be consigned to record.