' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 11th April, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service.
2. The appellant was appointed as typist clerk on purely trial basis on 2nd July, 1980, vide Exh. R. I.
His services were terminated on 14th October, 1981. The ground for which his services were terminated is that a case under sections 307/34 and 325/34, P. P. C. Was pending against him when he had applied for service but he concealed this fact. He was in that case convicted and sentenced to two years' R. I. And fine of Rs, 500 on 13th May, 1981 but instead of informing the respondent deceived it by sending an application for one week's leave on the said date on the plea that his sister's marriage was to take place.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since there was no such column in the pro forma meant for applying for service, therefore, the appellant could not mention in the application that a case was pending against him. He also says that it was the private affair of the appellant and he was not required to disclose it to the respondent. There may not be any such column to disclose this fact but it does not mean that the appellant could not mention this fact in remarks column or in the end. Anyhow, the most material thing is the concealment of his conviction in the criminal case. Not only that he concealed this fact but deceived the respondent by misrepresenting that he required leave in connection with the marriage of his sister, whereas in reality he was prevented from attending his duties by having been sentenced to two years' R. I. The offence of attempt to murder and cause grievous hurt nevertheless amounts to misconduct. So on one hand the appellant committed misconduct by attempting to murder his opponent and on the other be deceived the respondent.
4. As the appellant was found guilty by a competent Court, so according to para. 258 (5) of the first Wage Commission Award, holding of domestic enquiry was not necessary. It has been argued that since according to the Wage Commission Award, the respondent-bank has framed its own rules, the Wage Commission Award is no longer applicable. Wage Commission Award has said that all banks should have uniform rules and terms and conditions of service and they should adopt the disciplinary rules of the National Bank. But it has not been shown by putting the rules of the respondent bank in res judicata position with the disciplinary rules of the National Bank that they are identical. So, Wage Commission Award continues to apply to the respondent bank. Apart from it since the appellant, as admitted by him, in cross-examination that he was continued to be an employee on trial basis upto the date of his termination, holding of enquiry under para. 258 (4) and
(5) was not necessary and under para 234 services could be terminated.
6. As a result of what has been observed above, the appeal being without force is dismissed.