' ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).--- The captioned appeals call in question the legality of the judgment dated 2-11-2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,4 Faisalabad whereby the grievance petition filed by Mr. Muhammad Boota (hereinafter described as the "appellant") was partially allowed converting the penalty of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement with all benefits admissible to the appellant under the rules. Whereas the Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. (hereinafter described as the "Bank") has challenged the judgment claiming that the penalty imposed by the bank was quite commensurate to the gravity of the charge against the employee. As such the law did not warrant any interference by the Labour Court which has travelled beyond its legal limits. As both the appeals arise out of the same order and are between the same parties, I propose to dispose of the same by this consolidated judgment.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the appellant joined the bank in 1977 and worked industriously to promote the bank business and never provided any chance of complaint to his employer. It was however on 18-2-2001 that Mian Ameen-ud-Din, Ex. Manager, MCB, Bhowana Bazar, Faisalabad was issued a charge-sheet. A similar charge-sheet was issued to the appellant.
The appellant repudiated the charges against him which was followed by a departmental enquiry.
The inquiry officer was visibly partial and failed to provide proper chance of defence to the appellant and on the basis of the so-called enquiry report he was dismissed from service on 29-5- 2002. As for the charges and consequential dismissal order against Mr. Ameen-ud-Din Ex- Manager, he filed a department appeal which was accepted and his dismissal order was converted into retirement with all admissible benefits. Likewise one Mr. Muhammad Riaz Officer Grade-III of the bank who was accused of similar charges and was dismissed from service his penalty of dismissal also was converted into retirement with all admissible benefits.
3. It was alleged that the appellant has clearly been discriminated against and was arbitrarily imposed the penalty of dismissal although charge against him had not been proved at all. He, therefore submitted that being a workman he is entitle to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The charge-sheet was time barred and nothing has been brought on the record by the bank which could have justified his conviction. No loss occurred to the bank and the penalty imposed against him was whimsical and without lawful authority.
4. The bank on the other hand claimed that a fair and impartial inquiry was held against him although the penalty of dismissal in respect of the Ex-Manager and Mr. Muhammad Riaz Officer Grade III had been changed into retirement nevertheless the case of Muhammad Boota was entirely on different footings. He was the Cash Officer and the TDRs were prepared by him as such he was the principal accused and no laxity could have been shown to him. He had put the bank into a grave risk by issuing the TDRs without first accounting for the money in the respective accounts-. As such the learned Labour Court had obviously failed to appreciate the differences between the gravity of the offence committed by the appellant and other officials. The learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the appellant was Officer- Grade III in the bank and had been issued a power of attorney which showed that he was not a workman and as such was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The enquiry proceedings spreading over (18 pages (pages Nos.207 to 225 of the Labour Court file) indeed show that although it was not in the required form yet the detailed question answers and the admission of the appellant leads one to believe that the enquiry was by and large fair and impartial. Moreover each page of the enquiry proceedings has been signed by Muhammad Boota which ensures its authenticity. The parties did not desire to lead oral evidence in the Labour Court and felt content by producing..Documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions.
5. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
6. Although the charges against the Ex-Manager Mr. Ameen-udDin are more in number than those of Muhammad Boota, classified as similar, yet basically they boiled down to the following charge:- "On 25-10-2001 the accused prepared 60 TDRs of Rs,50000 with total amount of Rs,3.000 M in the next date of 26-10-2001 in collusion with the, then Manager as per detail of Annexure "A" copy produced marked under Exh./P-1 (containing 11 pages). Meanwhile the Audit team visited the branch on the same date and counted the Running Cash. The accused with the assistance of the then Manager arranged the cash against which the TDRs were issued and delivered to the purchaseRs, The Vouchers of the questioned TDRs were entered in the day's sheet of 25-10-2001 which resulted that the TDRs were issued. And delivered to the purchasers without receipt of cash."
6. After admitting the charges before the enquiry officer, the plea of the appellant that -he was forced to sign the document by the Audit A Officer appears to be a conventional and stock reply of the officials to escape the liability. He had put very important and searching questions to the prosecution but it is un-understandable as to why he was obliged to admit that TDRs were issued and the money was recouped afterwards.
7. As for the issue of workmanship the learned Labour Court appears to have rightly held that the appellant had not acknowledged receipt of any power of attorney and the bank had not produced any evidence that the power of attorney alleged to have been issued by the bank was received and used by the appellant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in order to deprive the officials of the bank to avail cheaper remedy from the labour courts the banks invariably keeps in their stocks such types of power of attorney to saddle the accused official with a responsible position. Even otherwise the duties of a cashier are always manual. He does not have any supervisory, I managerial or executive poweRs, I, therefore, find that the view of the
8. Itself learned Labour Court was fair and just in this respect.
8.
As for the delay in issuing the charge-sheet, the learned counsel for the bank explained that it was not given on the very date and is issued when the auditors came to the conclusion that the bank officials have committed violation of the rules. There is a process for coming to a conclusion in this regard. Reports are submitted to the higher officers through the bank executives and after examining the pros and cons of the charge, and then action is initiated. Even otherwise, in such cases of major irregularities on this technical objection the process cannot be thwarted as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that minor delays should be ignored. It was ruled:- "The provisions as contained in the Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 could not be interpreted in such a manner that delinquent should be scot-free after thirty days in any case as such interpretation would neither be logical nor reasonable." (2004 SCM R 149).
9. The learned Labour Court has rightly compared and noticed that the cases of the two other bank employees viz Mr. Ameen ud Din and Muhammad Riaz who had identical rather exactly the same charges and the bank had treated them differently as such the bank could not have treated the appellant otherwise when the guilt of each one was substantially at par. Law requires that like cases should be dealt with alike as such the court has rightly converted the penalty of dismissal into that of compulsory retirement in line with the action taken against the other officeRs,'
10. Muhammad Boota in his representation against the penalty had prayed for the following relief:- -- "That thus the law justice and equity demand that the impugned order regarding the dismissal of the appellant from service be ordered to be set aside, recalled, reversed and the appellant be ordered to be reinstated in the service of the bank with all service benefits or in the alternate the appellant be ordered to opt the Voluntary Separation from the Services of the bank or retirement from his service with all permissible benefits as per staff service rules."
' The prayer indicates that the appellant had in mind that if he is permitted to retire on the lines of two other officers of the Bank he would feel satisfied.
11 It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant with greater emphasis that no loss had occurred to the bank in this regard. It was only on hyper technicalities that Muhammad Boota was being penalized.
12. Conversely the stance of the learned counsel for the respondent bank was that it is immaterial whether the bank has financially suffered or not but the bank's reputation and goodwill is always at stake in such matteRs, Had this fraud matured and the bank had been deprived of this huge amount this would have shattered the confidence of the bank clientele. I am afraid the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is ostensibly misconceived . It is said that if the money is lost something lost but if the confidence is lost everything is lost. The bank jealously guards against the loss of confidence of their customers and if this is lost the bank's business collapses in due course of time. As such the plea that the bank has not suffered in terms of money carries no weight.
13. In this view of the matter I feel that there is no flaw or infirmity or lacuna in the impugned order and each of the three officials has been dealt with at par and there can be said no discrimination in case of Mr. Muhammad Boota.
14. In this view of the matter, it appears that in the peculiar circumstances of the case both the appeals merit dismissal and as such are hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.