' This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned VIlth Labour Court, given on 5th November, 1981, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant on the basis of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Abdul Aziz v. National Bank of Pakistan. (Appeal No, HYD-18/79).
2. The facts of this case shortly stated are that the appellant, who was appointed as Senior Head Cashier at the Zonal Office, Sukkur, was placed under suspension, vide order, dated 26th December, 1977, on the basis of certain banking irregularities committed by him while he was Senior Head Cashier at Garhi Yaseen Branch. He was subsequently issued a charge-sheet, dated 20th February, 1979, 3rd March, 1979, and a further charge-sheet, dated 23rd April, 1979, indicating Malpractices in the course of his official duties. The appellant submitted explanations to the 2 charge-sheets but as they were not found satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was ordered and Mr. A. R. Abani, Assistant Vice-President, Main Branch, National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. On the basis of the Enquiry Officer's report, the competent authority in the respondent bank dismissed the appellant from service with immediate effect, vide office order, dated 29th January, 1981. The appellant submitted an appeal to the President of the bank against' his dismissal from service, but the appeal was unsuccessful. The appellant accordingly filed a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court which has dismissed the same by a short order on the ground that it had no jurisdiction in the matter.
3. Mr. Azizullah Sheikh has sought to assail the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court on the basis of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of National Bank of Pakistan v. Nizamuddin Mehar (1). In the reported case, it was held that the Discipline Rules framed by the Wage Commission for the banks and financial institutions could not be construed as statutory rules so as to exclude employees of nationalized banks from the purview of the Standing Orders and the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts. The dismissal orders in respect of the appellant, however, were passed after the Second Wage Commission had given its Award and in compliance with the directions in the said Award, the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1980, were framed by the respondent bank. Even the enquiry appears to have been held against the appellant after the Second Wage Commission had given its award and the 1980 Service Rules had become applicable as these A Rules are stated to have taken effect from 1st January, 1980, while the enquiry was held after 19th February, 1980. The question thus which has to be considered is to what is the effect of the Second Wage Commission award and the framing of the new Rules.
4. There is, however, an additional issue involved which has not been considered by the learned Labour Court. It is contended by Mr. Nizamuddin Baloch that as the appellant admittedly was employed as Senior Head Cashier at the relevant time, he was an officer of the bank and not a workman as defined in the Standing Orders. On the other hand, it was contended by Mr. Azizullah Sheikh that though the appellant was designated as Senior Head Cashier, he was posted in the main Zonal Office at Sukkur and the nature of his duties was mainly {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1980 PLC 1118 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' clerical. The learned counsel also relied upon the assertion made by the appellant in paragraph 10 of his grievance petition where he has claimed that he was a workman under the law. As the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed without even issue of notice, to the respondent bank, there has been no evidence in rebuttal or eve denial of the claim of the appellant that he was a workman for the purpose of the Standing Orders. It is settled law that designation of an employee is not the deciding factor whether he is a workman or not, but the determining factor is the nature of his duties. Irrespective of what may be the designation of the post which an employee was holding, if he is employed to do work, which is clerical or manual, or his main duties are of clerical and manual nature, he would be deemed to be workman and would be entitled, subject to any exception in this behal under the law to file a grievance petition against the termination of hi services. Since there is no evidence recorded in this case as to the nature of the duties which the appellant was employed to do or required to perform, I would remand the case to the learned Labou Court for giving an opportunity to both parties to lead evidence on the point as to what was the nature of duties which the appellant was employed or required to perform. The learned Labour Court should give priority to this case and ensure that the evidence is recorded as early as possible.