Ghulam Nabi Deeshak, Member, NIRC.--This appeal has been directed against the impugned order dated 30.04-2014 passed by single Bench or this Commission whereby grievance petition filed under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Assistant on 15-12-1986 in the respondent's Bank and served with a carrier expanded to more than 25 years in various Regions of North. Due to his devotion of work he was promoted Officer Grade-III and Officer Grade-II in the years. 2000 and 2009 respectively. That the appellant applied for premature early retirement in the year 2012 and his application was allowed by the respondent's management. He was retired from service on 02-07-2012 and other officer took over the charge of the office according to procedure of respondents Bank. The credit card & other relevant documents were returned to respondent's management by the appellant.
3. On 24-07-2012 a charge sheet was issued to appellant which was duly replied by the appellant wherein he denied the charge levelled against him. On 24-08-2012 inquiry notice was served to him wherein he was directed to appear before the Inquiry Officer at UBL Regional Headquarters, Rawalpindi. After conducting inquiry a letter of reprimand was issued to appellant and finally the appellant was dismissed from service on 31-10-2012. The appellant served a grievance notice to respondents management and filed grievance petition under Section 33 of the IRA, 2012 before this Commission against his dismissal from service which was dismissed, hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of both the parties. The learned counsel for appellant contended that on 02-07-2012, the appellant exercised the option of premature early retirement Scheme as, per Bank policy after completion of all formalities relieved from the Bank and another officer took charge of the Bank. On 24-07-2012 appellant received fake and baseless charge sheet wherein it was alleged that he has committed fraud by violating the Banks prescribe policy & procedure by filing in a deposit slip amounting to Rs:300000/- for an account holder namely Mst. Ghulam Sakina mentioning here on wrong account number in the name of Farah Adeba and he wrote the cheque of Farah Adeba and withdrew the same amount.
The said charge was denied by appellant in his written reply. The alleged charge pertains to period when the appellant was posted as Officer Grade-II at Doultana Branch, District Chakwal. He next argued that Mst. Ghulam Sakina filed a complaint before Bonking Magistrate who admitted that she mistakenly produced the cheque book of Mst.Farha Adeba and account number was filled mistakenly instead of complainant account declaring it a clerical mistake. The Bank Magistrate exonerated the appellant from all charges vide order dated 09-06-2011 and Mst.Farah Adeba was declared guilty. He further contended that the appellant lodged FIR at Police Station Jatli, District Rawalpindi regarding said incident. Mst.Farah Adeba was found guilty and challaned as accused.
He further argued that Mst. Ghulam Sakina filed writ petition before Hon'ble. Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench against the appellant which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. The impugned order of dismissal of. Appellant was without holding of proper inquiry which is violation of principle of natural justice & law. He next argued that no evidence has recorded by the Single Bench in the matter to determine the petitioner as workman.
5. Conversely the learned counsel for respondents repelled the arguments of learned counsel for appellant by saying that the appellant was Branch Manager employed managerial,. Supervisory and administrative capacity to which also power of attorney was given to him by the respondent, therefore, this appeal is not maintainable under the law. The order impugned in this appeal passed by the learned Chairman is in accordance with law; which may be maintained. He further contended that the appellant failed to show that he was workmen with the meaning of Section 2(xxxiii) of Industrial Relations Act, 2012. He next argued that no right granted and or secured to the appellant under any law, award or settlement for the time being enforcement had been infringed which called for enforcement. He also contended that the appeal is not maintainable as it has neither been alleged nor pleaded that dismissal of appellant was in connection with any Industrial dispute or it had led to any industrial dispute. He prayed for dismissal of appeal.
6. We have heard the arguments and perused the record available on file.
7. It is not disputed that at the relevant time when the impugned action had been taken against the appellant he was posted as Officer Grade-II and was performing managerial duty as Branch Manager at Daultala Branch. He was also holder of Power of Attorney on behalf of respondent Bank.
It is consistent views of Hon'ble Superior Courts of the Country that an employee of Bank holding a Branch and performing supervisory work although have no Power to hire and fire but by dint of duty of such employee appearing to be of managerial and supervisory nature, such employee would fall beyond the ambit and purview of term workman. The appellant never alleged in his entire petition filed under Section 33 of the IRA, 2012 read with Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 that he was a workman and performing clerical nature of duties. It is settled law that no evidence could be held on a plea of facts not taken; the pure & simple question of law does not required evidence and are to be decided at the commencement of the proceedings.
8. The appellant at the relevant time was performing duties as Operational Manager at Daultala Branch District Chakwal, such duties of Manager are managerial and supervisory in nature so he does not fall under the definition of workman as envisage in Section 2 (xxxiii) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012.
9. For what has been discussed above we do not find merits for acceptance of this appeal; hence the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. File be consigned to record after completion of codal formalities.