MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J.---- Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners impugn the judgment dated 31.07.2019 passed by the learned Full Bench, National Industrial Relations Commission ("N.I.R.C."), whereby the appeal filed by respondent No.1, Miss Iffat Nawaz, against the order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the learned Member , N.I.R.C. was allowed and the matter was remanded to the learned Member , N.I.R.C. for disposal of respondent No.1's grievance petition on merits.
2. The record shows that on 05.07.2010, respondent No.1 was appointed as Officer Grade-III on regular basis in the Bank of Khyber ("BoK"). She was initially posted at the BoK's D.I. Khan Branch as General Banking Officer.
After the Internal Audit Division ("I.A.D .") of BoK reported fraudulent transactions between 23.01.2014 and 04.08.2014, respondent No.1 was suspended on 11.11.2014 and a charge sheet along with statement of allegations was issued to her. On 22.07.2015, a final show-cause notice was issued to respondent No.1 calling upon her to show-cause as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be taken against her. Vide letter dated 12.08.2015, respondent No.1 was removed from service. In the said letter , it was mentioned that the Inquiry Officer had found respondent No.1 guilty of the charges levelled against her. Against the imposition of the said penalty , respondent No.1 issued a grievance notice to the BoK. Vide letter dated 21.09.2015, the BoK informed respondent No.1 that the penalty imposed on her had been upheld.
3. On 19.10.2015, respondent No.1 filed a grievance petition challenging her removal from service before the N.I.R.C., Peshawar . Vide order dated 29.01.2019, the learned Member , N.I.R.C. dismissed respondent No. l's grievance petition primarily on the ground that since she was not a "worker" as defined in Section 2(xxxiii) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 ("the I.R.A ."), N.I.R.C. did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon her grievance petition.
4. Against the said order dated 29.01.2019, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the learned Full Bench, N.I.R.C. Vide judgment dated 31.07.2019, respondent No.1's appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the learnedz Member , N.I.R.C. for the disposal of respondent No.1's grievance petition on merits. The said judgment dated 31.07.2019 has been assailed by the petitioners in the instant writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, after narrating the facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition, submitted that the order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the learned Member , N.I.R.C. was strictly in accordance with the law since respondent No.1 did not come within the meaning of a "worker" as defined in Section 2(xxxiii) of the I.R.A.; that respondent No.1, as Officer Grade-III, was performing her duties as a Clearing Officer; that since respondent No.1 was not a worker , the N.I.R.C. did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon her grievance petition; that respondent No.1 did not even plead in her grievance petition that she was a worker; that the onus was on respondent No.1 to prove that she was a worker; that there was nothing on the record to show that respondent No.1 was a worker; that in her affidavit, respondent No.1 had simply pleaded that she had been "assigned the duties/works of clearance at BoK"; that twelve fraudulent transactions reported by the I.A.D. of the BoK were made through respondent No.1's I.D.; and that the sum involved in such fraudulent transactions was Rs.4,656,160/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for the impugned judgment dated 31.07.2019 passed by the learned Full Bench, N.I.R.C. to be set-aside and for the order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the learned Member , N.I.R.C. to be restored.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 drew the attention of the Court to respondent No. 1's cross- examination and submitted that there was ample evidence on the record to show that respondent No.1 was a worker; that in the reply to respondent No.1's grievance notice, the BoK did not take a position that respondent No.1 was not a worker; that since respondent No.1 had given the descriptions of her duties in paragraph 4 of the grievance petition and also in her affidavit-in-evidence, the learned Full Bench, N.I.R.C. was correct in holding that respondent No.1 was a worker; that the detailed descriptions of respondent No.1's responsibilities are set out in her cross-examination; that respondent No. l's responsibilities for clearing cheques brought her within the meaning of the term "worker" as defined in Section 2(xxxiii) of the I.R.A.; that a regular inquiry had not been conducted against respondent No.1 before a major penalty of removal from service was imposed on her; that it was obligatory on the BoK to have conducted a regular inquiry against respondent No.1 in accordance with the law; and that the Courts are slow in interfering with remand orders. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 prayed for the writ petition to be dismissed.
7. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition have been set out in sufficient detail in paragraphs 2 to 4 above and need not be recapitulated.
8. The primary ground on which the learned Member , N.I.R.C. dismissed responde nt No.1's grievance petition was that the nature of her duties as Officer Grade-III was not such as would bring her within the meaning of the term "worker" as defined in Section 2(xxxiii) of the I.R.A. On this basis, the learned Member , N.I.R.C. held that the N.I.R.C. had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon respondent No.1's grievance petition . The learned. Member , N.I.R.C. did not go into the merits of respondent No. l's claim in her grievance petition.
9. The learned Full Bench, N.I.R.C. did not agree with the view taken by the learned Member , N.I.R.C. and held that respondent No.1's "job was clerical in nature and only her designation as clearing officer or Officer Grade-III does not [t]ake her out of ambit of workers." After holding so, the learned Full Bench, N.I.R.C. remanded the matter to the learned Member , N.I.R.C. for the disposal of respondent No.1's grievance petition on merits.
10. The sole question that needs to be determined is whether the nature of respondent No.1's duties was such as to bring her within the meaning of the term "worker" as defined in Section 2(xxxiii) of the I.R.A. Section 33(4) of the I.R.A. gives the right to a worker who is dissatisfied with his employer's decision on his grievance notice or where the employer does not respond to the worker's grievance notice to take the matter to the N.I.R.C. In order to invoke the jurisdiction of the N.I.R.C. under Section 33(4) of the I.R.A., it is essential for an employee to satisfy that he is a worker or a workman as defined in Section 2(xxxiii) of the I.R.A., which is reproduced herein below:- "2(xxxiii) "worker" and "workman" mean person not falling within the definition of employer who is employed (including employment as a supervisor or as an apprentice) in an establishment or industry for hire or reward either directly or through a contractor whether the terms of employment are express or implied, and, for the purpose of any proceedings under this Act in relating to an industrial dispute includes a person who has been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid-off or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge,