' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 30th March, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan, whereby the respondent was directed to be re-instated in service without back benefits. The respondent has in his cross-objections claimed back benefits. The cross-objections are being disposed of along-with the appeal.
2. As many as six charges were levelled against the respondent but only the sixth charge amounted to misconduct. Charges Nos, 1 and 2 related to previous misconduct for which the respondent had already been punished. According to para. 258 (2) of the Wage Commission Award, more than one punishments can be awarded but there is no provision that an employee can be vexed for the same offence more than once.
3. Charge No, 3 consists of three sub-charges--one is that the respondent received Rs, 550 against salary for the month of October, 1976 from Hussain Agahi Branch ; the second sub-charge is that he received second profit bonus from Hussain Agahi Branch but there is no evidence on these two sub-charges about double recovery. P.W. 1 before the Enquiry Officer stated about the single recovery. So, these two sub-charges of charge No, 3 were not established. Likewise no evidence has been pointed out on the point that the respondent received Rs, 500 against any T.A. Bill either twice or without any right. The evidence is about recovering the amount. He does not say that he was not entitled to it. This sub-charge is vague also. No period or journey is disclosed in the charge.
The respondent was not in a position to rebut it on account of lack of details.
4. Charge No, 4 again pertains to T. A. Bills amounting to Rs, 1,200 but the details are not given. It is not disclosed as to which months they pertain and where the journey was shown to have been made. The respondent thus could not have opportunity to answer it.
5. So far as charge No, 5 is concerned the allegation is that advance has been taken by the respondent against third profit bonus twice once from Adda Pipli Branch and again from Hussain Agahi Branch but P. W. 1 speaks of second profit bonus received from Cantonment Branch. There is no evidence about receiving the third profit bonus from Adda Pipli as well as from Hussain Agahi Branch. So, the charge does not stand established.
6. So far as the charge about absence is concerned, no witness, who could have first hand knowledge, was examined during the enquiry. P.W. 1 in cross-examination said that when the respondent had made second application for leave on 24th March, 1977 he was not present being on leave and that he was giving statement on behalf of the Manager. Meaning thereby that whatever he deposed that was told to him by the Manager who was not examined, So, his evidence is hearsay and thus has no value. So, it does not stand proved that he was informed that his leave bad been sanctioned for ten days only and not for two months. The only irregularity was that the respondent availed of the leave without first getting it sanctioned. No rules or instructions have been cited to the effect that no one could go on leave by merely applying for it. So, the act of proceeding on leave without getting it sanctioned was not a misconduct as the leave was to be sanctioned from the Zonal Office, whereas the application was given in the Branch Vehari. As leave was required urgently, the respondent was justified in not waiting for the sanction. So no misconduct was established and the respondent was rightly directed to be re-instated in service.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that since the learned lower Court has held that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable and that the appellant bank has no statutory rules, the rule of master and servant would apply. The learned lower Court has not, as a matter of fact, found whether the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies or not as the objection in this respect was not pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned lower Court has held that if Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable, Wage Commission Award would apply. I have held in many banks' cases that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable to nationalised banks and instead Wage Commission Award applies. As the appellant bank is too a nationalised bank, Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 does not apply to it as the bank, by virtue of section 4 of the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, is running under the authority of the Central Government and Wage Commission Award, having been delivered under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and was published in the Gazette Notification, enjoys the status of statutory rules.
In this manner both the requirements contained in proviso to section 1 (4) (c) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, for the exclusion of the said Ordinance, stand fulfilled. So, no question of the application of the rule of master and servant arises.
8. In cross-objections back benefits have been claimed, but the respondent did not state that during the period of his dismissal he was not gainfully employed elsewhere.
9. As a result, the appeal and the cross-objections are dismissed.