' The appeal captioned above emanates from the decision dated 19th January, 1982 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed. The respondent has filed cross-objections that are being disposed of alongwith the appeal.
2. The allegations against the appellant were that he received deposits but deposited the amounts after keeping the same with him for 3 to 28 days, that 15 C. D. Rs, detailed in the charge-sheet were issued by him in favour of various parties without receiving the cash and cancelled them thereafter, amounting dishonesty in connection with the bank's business, that he remained absent without leave from April, 1979 to the date of the charge-sheet i. e. 4th November, 1980 and that he joined service with Messrs Commercial Planners Limited as Branch Manager. In reply to the charge-sheet he admitted the allegations and tried to put forth apology. He said that there was hard competition with other banks, therefore, he in order to attract customers advanced the amounts mentioned in item No, 1 of the charge-sheet without credits and did not himself utilise the amounts. About 15 Call Deposit Receipts (C.D.Rs,) he said that he did not remember to have issued them and added that if he had done so, the parties had sound deposits in the saving accounts and the party being Government Contractor had helped him in securing huge deposits. The cause of absence advanced by him is that no duty was assigned to him in the Zonal Office. The reason for joining service with Messrs Commercial Planners given by him is that his salary was stopped, resulting in starvation to his family, so he temporarily joined service with the above-mentioned firm and left in June, 1979.
3. In view of the admission of the charges, it was not necessary to hold any enquiry. There is a defect in the enquiry which is that the statement of the representative of the management, who was acting as prosecutor, was recorded. He simply narrated the allegations made against the appellant. In spite of it the appellant was afforded opportunity to cross-examine him. If the appellant had not admitted the charges in reply to the charge-sheet, of course the defect of recording the statement of the prosecutor as a witness would have been taken notice of.
4. So far as charge No, 1 is concerned, firstly the appellant did not prove by any evidence that the amounts received by him and deposited late by 3 to 28 days were advanced to some account holders of the respondent bank without there being amounts standing at their credit and secondly even if it was so, this act of the appellant nevertheless amounted to misconduct. He should have at once deposited the money in the accounts of the account holders who had delivered it to him.
Non-deposit of money in the accounts of the accounts holder, who paid it, was a clear case of temporary misappropriation for the period the money was retained.
5. Issuance of call deposit receipts without receipt of cash was detrimental to the respondent bank.
Their cancellation afterwards was immaterial, without receipt of cash, no receipt can be issued.
6. Non-assignment of duty was no justification for becoming absent. In the beginning duty may not have been assigned to him but possibility cannot be excluded that if he had not remained absent, he may have been deputed to do some work. As a matter of fact, intentionally became absent as he had joined service with Messrs Commercial Planners Limited Absence without leave is misconduct and by his admission this charge also stood proved.
7. Getting employment without permission with some other employer during the continuance of service is misconduct. No one can be the employee of more than one employer at one and the same time.
8. So far as the question of workman is concerned, those duties are material which the appellant was performing at the time he was charge-sheeted, proceeded against and ultimately dismissed.
Admittedly before his transfer to Zonal Office, Jhang he was Manager/Supervisor of Session Chowk Branch. According to him no duties were assigned to him at Zonal Office, Jhang. So the duties which were being performed by him before his transfer to Zonal Office are material and relevant.
He being Manager at that time is out of the definition of workman. This is not his case that he was Manager only by name and that he had been performing clerical duties. He admitted that in Zonal Office he used to do the work of the recovery of advances made by him. Obviously recovery is made by asking the debtors to pay the debt. He does not say that he used to issue receipts himself.
So this was not a clerical work. He said in cross-examination that he used to ask the debtors to pay the debt. He thus was not a workman either under section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 or under section 2 (i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
9. There is force in the argument that the charge-sheet was issued by an incompetent authority.
The charge-sheet bears the signatures of Vice-President and Zonal Chief, but the dismiss order Exh. P-10 was passed by the Senior Vice-President, Personnel Division and Senior Vice-President and Regional Controller. There is no document on the record to show that the authorities who dismissed the appellant had authorised the Vice-President and Zonal Chief to issue charge-sheet and to appoint the enquiry officer.
10. There is no force in the argument that charge-sheet was time-barred. Period of one month is fixed for issuing charge-sheet in Standing Order 15 (4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 but Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 does not apply to the nationalised banks. Wage Commission Award applies. The charge-sheet is not time-barred.
11. As the appellants failed to establish that he was a workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the learned lower Court had no jurisdiction.
12. As a result of my finding that the appellant is not a workman, the appeal fails and is dismissed and the cross-objections disposed of accordingly.