These 2 appeals by 2 former employees of the Habib Bank Ltd--- are directed against the decision.
Of the learned VIth Labour Court Hyderabad , dismissing their respective grievance petitions challenging their dismissal from service. Appeal No. HYD-231/81 has been preferred by the appellant, Juma Gul, and is directed against the decision given by the learned VIth Labour Court on 29th March, 1981, while Appeal No. HYD-232181 has been filed by appellant Sirajuddin Chuhan and is directed against a separate but similar decision given by the learned VIth Labour Court on the same date, i.e., 29th March, 1981. As both the appeals arise from a common incident, which is said to have occurred on 23rd September, 1978 and as common issues of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
2. The relevant facts in Appeal No. HYD-231/81 are that appellant Juma Gul was employed as a messenger at the Domanwah Road Branch, Hyderabad, of the Habib Bank Limited. It appears that on 11th September, 1978, an election was held for electing the office-bearers of employees' union of the Habib Bank Ltd. At Hyderabad. In that election the appellant is said to have been elected as Joint Secretary and appellant Sirajuddin Chuhan in Appeal No. HYD-232/81 is said to have been elected as Vice-President, of the employees union. It is alleged by the respondent bank that on 2nd September, 1978, at about 11.00 a.m., the aforesaid 2 appellants alongwith some other employees of the bank forcibly entered the office of Mr. M. Y. Dalia, Assistant Vice-President and Zonal Chief, Hyderabad, manhandled messenger Sultan who tried to prevent their entry into Mr. Dalia's office, misbehaved with and forcibly ejected from Mr. Dali&'s room, Mr. Hassan Ali Khoja, a Senior Officer of the Habib Bank, who was then sitting with Mr. Dalia, misbehaved with, abused and threatened Mr. Dalia with serious consequences unless he consulted them before taking any administrative decision and thereafter the said reasons are said to have gone to the Station Road Branch of the Habib Bank where they misbehaved with and abused Mr. Rao Msuharraf Ali Khan, Manager of the Branch, and Mr. A. H. Wadiwala, Sub-Manager, while Mr. S. Shakir, Officer Incharge, Foreign Exchange Section, was man handled and pushed out of the cabin of Manager Rao Musharraf Ali Khan. A report of the incident is said to have been made to the police by Mr. Dalia and he also submitted a written complaint, dated 4th October, 1978, to the Head Office, which was received at the Head Office by Mr. Shamim Hussain Kazmi, Senior Vice-President, on 7th October, 1978. On the basis of the said report of Mr. Dalia, detailed. Charge-sheets, dated 22nd October, 1978, were issued to the appellants: which are said to have been received by them on 29th October, 1978. Appellant Juma Gul, by his letter, dated 31st October, 1978, objected to. The issuance of the charge-sheet and claimed that it was illegal and' constituted contempt of Court as Mr. Dalia had already lodged a report about the incident with the police and also made a complaint of the incident to the Vltb Labour Court. He further asked for a copy of the report on the basis of which the charge-sheet had been issued against him. The management did not accept the contentions of the appellant and by their letter, dated 21st November, 1978; informed the appellant, Jurpa Gul, that it had been decided to hold a domestic enquiry against him on the charges stated in the charge-sheet, that Mr. Sabit Ali Khan, Vice-President, had been appointed as the enquiry officer and that the enquiry would be held on 29th November, 1978, at 3.00 p. m. The letter contained the warning that if appellant Yuma Gul failed to attend that enquiry at the said date, the enquiry would be held ex porte,
3. Appellant Juma Gul attended before the enquiry officer on 29th November, 1978 and requested that the enquiry proceedings be conducted in Urdu. His request was granted. He also requested for a copy of the complaint made against him. This request was also granted and copy of the complaint made against by Mr. Dalia was supplied. Appellant Juma Gul then requested that he may be given tine for submitting a reply to the charge-sheet to the management. The enquiry officer acceded to this request also and postponed the enquiry to 13th December, 1978. On the latter date, the appellant appeared before the enquiry officer but at his request that the enquiry be postponed as his child was ill, the enquiry proceedings were adjourned to 29th December, 1978. On the latter date, appellant Juma Gul appeared before the enquiry officer but submitted an application for adjournment, this time on the ground that the charges against him were false and fabricated. He also objected to the holding of the enquiry since the same matter was pending adjudica--tion before the learned Labour Court . On the enquiry officer's refusal to further adjourn the enquiry proceedings, the appellant refused to parti--cipate further in the enquiry proceedings, and walked out. The enquiry was, however, postponed to 11th January, 1979 and due notice of this adjournment was given to appellant Juma Gul. Juma Gul appeared before the enquiry officer on 11th January, 1979 and submitted an application, dated 10th January, 1979, addressed to the Circle Executive, wherein he had once more requested that the enquiry proceedings be dropped. As the enquiry officer refused to further adjourn the proceed--ings, the appellant, Juma Gul, walked out of the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry officer accordingly, conducted the enquiry proceedings ex parte.
4. In the enquiry proceedings, the enquiry officer recorded the statements of (1) Mr. M. V Dalia, Assistant Vice-President and Zonal Chief, (2) messenger Sultan, (3) Mr. Hassan Ali Khoja, Zonal Officer, (4 Mr. Sabzwari, P. A. Zonal Office, (5) Mr. A. H. Wadiwala, Sub--Manager, Station Road Branch, (6) Mr. Rao Musharraf Ali Khan, Manager, Station Road Branch, and (7). Mr. Shakir Ali, Officer, Station Road Branch. As all these witnesses supported the charges, against appellant Juma Gul, the enquiry officer submitted a report to the effect that the charges against the appellant had been duly established ' On the basis of this report, appellant Juma Gul was dismissed from service vide order, dated 18th February, 1980. Aggrieved by this order, the appel--lant, Juma Gul preferred grievance petition before the learned V1th Labour Court which was dismissed by its decision/) given on 29th March, 1981
5. The facts of appeal -No. HYD-232/81. Are drat appellant Sirajuddin Chuban was employed as a driver is the Zonal Branch, Hyderabad, of the Habib Bank Ltd. As already stated, in the election of the employees' union, Hyderabad, in the Habib Bank Ltd., held on 11th September, 1978, he was elected as Vice-President. He along with appellant Juma and 4 others are alleged to have participated in the incident which occurred on 23rd September, 1978, in which officers of the Zonal Branch, Hyderabad, including the Zonal Chief, Mr. Dalia, and Officers of Station Road Branch, Hyderabad, are said to have been insulted, abused and threatened and even physically assaulted. In respect of this incident, he was issued with a charge-sheet, dated 22nd October, 1978, which appears to have been received by him on 29 October, 1978. On 31st October, 1978, he wrote a similar letter to the Management as was written by appellant Juma Gul alleging that the charge-sheet was illegal and constituted Contempt of Court as not only a first report was lodged against him with the police but also a complaint. Had been made against him to the Labour Court at Hyderabad. His objection to the issuance of the charge-sheet was similarly rejected by the manage--ment which informed him that the enquiry against him would hold on 31st October, 1978 by Mr. Shakir Ali, Vice-President. It appears that on the said date, the appellant, Sirajuddin, did not appear before the enquiry officer who adjourned the enquiry proceedings to 14th December, '1978.
On the latter date. Appellant Sirajuddin Chuhan appeared before the enquiry officer and handed over to him a copy of the application, dated 13th December, 1978, claiming that as the matter was sub judice before the learned Labour Court at Hyderabad, the enquiry officer was not competent to hold the enquiry against him. The enquiry officer' was not prepared to uphold the objections raised by appellant Sirajuddin to the enquiry proceedings but nevertheless adjourned the enquiry proceedings to 11th January, 1979. On the latter`8ate, appellant Sirajuddin appeared before the enquiry officer but after making a state-- ment that the charges against him were false, he declined to take further part in the proceedings and left, whereupon the enquiry proceedings were held ex parte. The same witnesses were examined by the enquiry officer in this enquiry as had been examined by him in the enquiry against appel--lant Juma Gul. In his report, the enquiry officer held the charges against appellant Sirajuddin Chuhan fully established. On the basis of the enquiry officer's report and the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, appellant Sirajuddin Chuhan was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 18th February, 1980, after a second show-cause notice had been issued to him, reply to which was not considered satisfactory by the management. A similar show-cause had also been issued to appellant Juma Gul. Appellant Sirajuddin Chuhan preferred a grievance petition to the learned VIth Labour Court against his dismissal but the learned Labour Courtth , by its decision given on 29th March, 1981, dismissed the same.
6. Before considering the respective contentions; of the learned counsel/representative of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to 2 facts. I have already referred to the objections submitted by the 2 appellants to the holding of the domestic enquiry against them on the ground that not only a F.
1. R. Was lodged against them but also a complaint of the incident had been made to the learned VIth Labour Court . No copy of the F.
1. R. Said to have been lodged with the police has been filed or produced in either of the 2 cases from which the present 2 appeals have arisen and accordingly it cannot be said as to what incident the F.
1. R. Related or what were the contents of that F. I. R., assuming that a F. I. R.
Was lodged by Mr. Dalia. However, a copy of the complaint made by Mr. Dalia against the 2 appellants and 5 other persons under section 53,
1. R. O., was produced before the learned Labour Court through Mr. Naqvi, Assistant Vice-President, who was examined on behalf of Habib Bank Ltd. This complaint, which was filed on 1st October, 1978, was dismissed on account of absence of complainant, as appears' from the certified copy of the order of the learned Labour Court, dated 25th February, 1980.
7. Mr. Wasiullah Quceshi, the learned representative for the 2 appellants has assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court on the twin grounds :-
(i) that the dismissal orders in respect of the appellants are invalid as the charge-sheets were served upon the appellants beyond the period prescribed in clause (4) of Standing Order 15 ;-and
(ii) that the dismissal orders are further invalid as they were issued by an incompetent authority, not authorized to issue or sign such orders.
8. Elaborating his arguments in support of his first contention, Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi submitted that the incident or incidents for alleged involvement wherein the appellants had b.-en dismissed, admittedly took place on 23rd September, 1978, and though the charge-sheets are said to be dated 22nd October, 1978, they were admittedly served upon the appellants on 29th October, 1978, beyond the period of one month from the date of the incident, in violation of the provisions of clause (4) of Standing Order 15. Although the appellants, before their dismissal were bank employees, and were governed by the provisions of the Efficiency and Discipline (Banks Financial .Institution) Rules, 1975 contained in the Award of the Ist Commission for Banks and Financial Institutions, the application of the said rules does not exclude the applica--tion of the provisions of Standing Order 15 to the extent that the latter provisions are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Rules of 1975, as held by this Tribunal in the case of National Bank of Pakistan v. Nazimuddin Mehar (1980 PLC 118). The view'3aken in the case of Nazimuddin Mehar was re-affirmed and followed by this Tribunal in the case of Altaf Ahmad Shaikh v. National Bank of Pakistan, decided on 28th March, 1982. However, it may be pointed out that the requirement of clause (4) of Standing Order 15 is that if it is intended to dismiss a workman, the alleged misconduct for which it is proposed to dismiss him should be brought to his notice in writing within one month of the commission of such misconduct or the misconduct being brought to the notice of the employer. It was sought to be argued by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi that inasmuch as the Zonal Chief, Mr. Dalia was competent to take disciplinary proceedings against the staff of the Habib Bank in his ,region. And to dismiss them from service, vide the Bank's Circular, dated 23rd January, 1970, the employer is deemed to have become aware of the alleged misconduct of the appellants on the very date of the incident, i.e. 23rd September, 1978. This contention has no force as it overlooks the fact`; that Mr. Dalia was tae main , person with whom the 2 appellants are' said to have misbehaved and, therefore, being the complainant could not also perform the role of the punishing authority. He further took the correct course of reporting the matter to the Head Office and left the taking of further action in the matter to the Head Office. The letter written by him to Mr. Shamim Kazmi, Vice- President and Circle Executive of the Habib Bank, which has been produced through Mr.-Anwar.
Saeed, Officer Employees' Relation in the Head Office of Habib Bank, who was examined before this Tribunal, is dated 4th October, 1978. It was received by Mr. Kazmi, who was the other witness examined before this Tribunal, on 7th October, 1978. This fact is supported by the endorsement of Mr. Kazmi on the said letter above the date, 7th October; 1978. Both these witnesses were examined before this Tribunal for the purpose of ascertaining when the alleged misconduct of the appellants was brought to the notice of the Head Office. If the letter written by Mr. Dalia on 4th October, 1978, be considered as the first notice which the Head Office received about the alleged misconduct of the appellants, the service of the 2 charge-sheets on the appellants on 29th October, 1978, would be within the period A laid down in clause (4j of Standing Order 15. It was, however, sought to be argued by Mr. Wasitillah Qureshi that Mr. Dalia must have informed the Head Office on telephone about the incident on the very day of the incident. There is no evidence to lend support to this conten--tion. No doubt, in the complaint, dated 1st October, 1978, which Mr. Dalia had filed before the learned VIth Labour Court, it is stated in paragraph 16 that he (Mr. Dalia) had informed the Head Office of the incident which had advised him to lodge a complaint with the learned Labour Court, but the said complaint gives no value as to when and in what manner Mr. Dalia had reported the matter to the Head Office before submitting his report, dated 4th October, 1978. Since it is asserted in para 16 of the complaint that the Head Office had "now advised" the complainant to lodge a complaint before the Court, it would appear that the report was made to the Head Office shortly before the comp--laint was filed, may be on the very day of the filing of the complaint or a day earlier. On that basis also the service of the charge-sheet on the 2 appellants on 29th October, 1978, would be in time. Moreover, in a serious matter of this nature, the Head Office would naturally like to have a written report before taking further proceedings in the matter. This is also what has been stated by Mr. Kazmi in his evidence before this Tribunal. Mr. Kazmi deposed that some time before the receipt of Mr. Dalia's letter on 7th October, 1978, Mr. Dalia had rung him up telling about the incident but he had advised him to submit a written report which was received on 7th October, 1978, I am, t5erefore, of the view that the service of the 2 charge-sheets on the appellants was effected within one month of the misconduct of the appellants coming to the notice of the employer, which in the case was the Head Office of the Bank at Karachi.
9. In support of his second contention that the sole person compe--tent to take disciplinary proceedings against the 2 appellants and to dismiss them was Mr. Dalia, in view of the Bank's Circular, dated 23rd January, 1976, and that Mr. Kazmi, who actually cbarge-sheeted the appellants and issued the dismissal orders, being the appellate autho--rity over the Zonal Chief, was not competent to take the action which he actually took, it may be mentioned that since Mr. Dalia was the main person against whom the aggression of the 2 appellants and their companions was directed being the complainant and an aggrieved party, could not also properly play the role of punishing authority by either initiating disciplinary proceedings against the appellants or issuing orders of their dismissal. The disciplinary proceedings were, therefore, appropriately. Initiated by Mr. Kazmi, the next authority above to Zonal Chief, and he rightly issued the dismissal orders of the 2 appellants. The course adopted by the management in this case appears to be fair and proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. I, therefore, find no fault with Mr. Kazmi, in the circumstances of the case, in charge-sheeting the appellants and issuing the orders of their dismissal.
10. The misconduct alleged against) the 2 appellants was fully proved in the domestic enquiries held against them. Their acts of conduct were of very serious and grave nature. They not only mis- -behaved with, abused and even physically assaulted senior officers of the Zonal office, including the Zonal Chief, Mr. Dalia, in the latter's office, but this was done by them in the presence of some valuable clients of the Bank, as stated in the charge-sheet. The appellants further went to the Station Road Branch of the Habib Bank and there also misbehaved with, abused and assaulted officers of that branch. They were, therefore, rightly dismissed from service for such grave misconducts.
11. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in these 2 appeals and would dismiss them.