' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 25th August, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 7, Gujranwala, whereby the respondent was directed to be re-instated in service without back benefits.
2. The respondent is a cashier. On the allegation of beating Mr. Abdul Qayum, Manager, and failing to get the motor-cycle purchased by him registered in the name of the Bank, was dismissed after being charge-sheeted and holding enquiry against him. The learned lower Court has directed the re-instatement of the respondent only on the ground that he was dismissed by the Head Office, whereas belonging to category-II, the dismissal order could be passed by the Circle Executive.
3. The order of re-instatement is correct but reasons given by the learned lower Court are not well- founded. The approach to the matter is incorrect. As a matter of fact the Vice-President, Zonal Office, considered the case and decided to dismiss the respondent as is evident from the dismissal letter Exh. P.
5. The Vice-President, Zonal Office, Sialkot, wrote in Exh. P. 5 "Your reply to final show-cause notice has also been found unsatisfactory". He further said in the said letter "you are therefore, hereby dismissed from service "So, it is more than clear that the Vice-President, Zonal Office, considered the matter and took an independant decision. Letters Exhs. R. 7 and R. 8 appear to have been prepared afterwards. They are contradictory to Exh. P.
5. Exhs. R. 7 and R, 8 show that the Head Office considered the matter and took a decision that the charges had been established against the respondent and decided to dismiss him. They do not show that the Head Office did not consider the matter and only authorised the Vice-President, Zonal Office, Sialkot. If Exhs. R. 7 and R. 8 had been written in normal routine, they would have simply authorised the Vice-President, Zonal Office, to take a decision. It appears that the Head Office was unaware of what was written in Exh. P.
5. It Exhs. R. 7 and R. 8 had come into existence before Exh. P. 5 was passed, the Vice-President Zonal Office, would have written in Exh. P. 5 that the Head Office had decided to dismiss the respondent, instead of saying that he had himself considered the reply to the final show-cause notice and had found it unsatisfactory. This is noteworthy that after the respondent had stated in his statement that the Vice-President,. Zonal Office, was not competent to dismiss, the learned counsel for the appellant produced Exhs. R. 7 and R. 8 by way of additional evidence with the permission of the learned lower Court. This further shows that Exhs. R-7 and R-8 were not existing and were prepared afterwards in back dates. Learned counsel for the appellant has not said that the Vice-President, Zonal Office, was himself competent. Since the order of dismissal Exh. P. 5 was passed by an incompetent authority, it was rightly set aside by the learned lower Court although on different grounds.
4. The learned lower Court has rightly found that it was competent to hear the grievance petition. I have disagreed with the view expressed in 1982 PLC I, wherein it has been held that the N. I. R. C. Has jurisdiction. The N. I. R. C. Has been given jurisdiction in the matters of unfair labour practices only as is evident from sections 22-A (8) (g) and 22-B (3) (a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
Section 38-E gives only criminal powers to the N.
1. R. C. There is no force in the argument that the Award of the Wage Commission being Award of the Full Bench of the N. I. R. C., the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction. Under section 38 D of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, all the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 are applicable to the Award of the Commission. So, section 25-A applies to this award and Labour Courts can on the basis of such an Award grant relief to the aggrieved persons.
5. As a result, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same.