' SPED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, J.-The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Sind Appellate Tribunal, Karachi, whereby the appeal against the dismissal from service and its maintenance by the Vth Sind Labour Court was allowed and reinstatement without back benefits was ordered.
2. The facts leading to this petition are that the respondent No, 2, namely, Asghar Imam, was at material times employed as cashier at the Abdullah Haroon Road Branch, Karachi, of the petitioner's bank.
3. The respondent No, 2 was charge sheeted on 27th June, 1979 for misappropriating a sum of Rs, 3,000. The charge-sheet was based on the complaint of Messrs Starfynhs Ali Ltd., alleging that on 26th June, 1979 their Manager Khurshid Hussain had deposited a sum of Rs, 18,860 by two pay-in- slips one for Rs, 15,860 and the other for Rs, 3,000 but the cashier viz. The respondent No,
2. Had stamped only one receipt for Rs, 15,860 whereas the slip for Rs, 3,000 was returned unstamped suggesting that the said amount of Rs, 3,000 had been unaccounted for and had been misappropriated. The petitioner by letter No, A. H. F. K. Miscellaneous/P./15 dated 27th June, 1979, charge-sheeted him. The respondent No, 2 in his detailed reply to the charge-shee, t dated 28th June, 1979, denied that he had misappropriated Rs, 3,000 deposited by Messrs Starfynhs Ali Ltd., and asserted that in fact the Manager of the said Company had deposited only Rs, 15,860. As the explanation of the respondent No, 2 was not considered satisfactory by the petitioner's bank, a domestic enquiry was ordered and it is the case of the petitioner bank that this domestic enquiry was held by Ashik Hussain, an officer of the Financial Division of the petitioner bank. The enquiry officer in his report gave the finding that the charge of misappropriation a sum of Rs, 3,000 bad been established against the respondent No,
2. The Respondent No, 2 was served with a final show- cause notice dated 4th September, 1979 to which the respondent No, 2 submitted an explanation dated 10th September, 1979 but his explanation was also not found satisfactory by the petitioner's bank and was accordingly rejected. He was ultimately dismissed vide letter dated 21st November, 1979. The respondent No, 2 preferred an appeal to the President of the Bank on 17th December, 1979 against the order of his dismissal from service. He submitted a reminder in respect of the appeal by a letter on 1st March, 1980. He was informed through bank's letter dated 14th March, 1980 that his case was being put up before the Staff Review Committee and the decision would be communicated to him in due course of time. The departmental appeal has not. Yet been decided by the Petitioner's bank. The respondent No, 2 after waiting for a reasonable time for the decision of departmental appeal preferred grievance petition on 26th May, 1980 after serving grievance notice dated 13th March, 1980 upon the Petitioner's bank to which no reply was received from the Petitioner's bank.
4. The 'learned Labour Court dismissed the respondent No, 2's application by an order dated 2nd May, 1982..
5. The respondent No, 2 preferred an appeal before the respondent No,
1. The learned Appellate Tribunal accordingly allowed the appeal of the Respondent No, '2 and rejected the allegation of misappropriation. The Petitioner in turn now assailed the order of the Appellate Tribunal by way of this Constitutional Petition.
6. Mr, O. H. Malik, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the grievance Petition under section 25A of Industrial Relations Ordinance was barred by time and the finding to the contrary as recorded by the respondent No, 1 was not correct. Developing the argument he referred to section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance which reads as follows : - "A worker may bring his grievance in respect of Any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force to the notice of his employer in writing, either himself or through his Shop Steward or trade union,. Within three months of the day on which cause of such grievance arises."
7. Learned counsel argued that the respondent No, 2 was dismissed on 21st January, 1979. The Respondent No, 2 preferred an appeal to the President of the Petitioner's bank on 17th December, 1979. He submitted a reminder on 1st March, 1980. At that stage he sent a grievance notice on 13th March, 1980 under section 25-A of the Ordinance. He was informed on 15th March, 1980 that the decision would be communicated to him in due course of time. The aforesaid letter dated 15th March, 1980 reads as follows :- "We write to in form you that your case is being put before the Staff Review Committee and their decision will be communicated to you in due course to time."
8. On 26th May, 1980 the employee filed a petition in the learned Vth Labour Court. It was argued that it was filed after delay of 25 days from the date of dismissed and was therefore time barred.
This plea has no substance as "grievance notice" has to be sent "within three months" of the day on which cause of such grievance arises. The employee preferred an appeal before the President of the Petitioner which was not rejected till 15th March, 1980. Here it may be stated that in reply to the reminder dated 1st March, 1980 sent by the employee he was never informed that his appeal was rejected. Rather he was told that the matter was being put before the Staff Review Committee. In the circumstances, the plea regarding any defect in the relevant "grievance notice" on the ground of limitation cannot be accepted.
9. The learned counsel however relied on a decision of Sind Labour Appellate Court reported in Muhammad Ozair Qureshi v. Chairman National Construction Co. Ltd., Karachi . The case is distinguishable as B there is no provision for departmental appeals as in the instant case. Each1 bank employee has to prefer a departmental appeal before invoking provisions of section 25-A of the Ordinance.
10. The next point argued by the learned counsel is that the respondent No, 1 has misread the evidence. The learned Counsel drew our attention to the explanation of the employee dated 28th June, 1979 and the order of the learned respondent No,
1. Admittedly, this is a Constitutional Petition and not an appeal, and consequently the order of the C learned Tribunal can only be attacked on limited grounds unlike appeal, where the scope of such attack is wider.
11. The last contention of the learned counsel also has no force in our opinion. The learned respondent No, 1 after examining the evidence on record including the explanation of the employee dated 28th June, 1979 came to be conclusion that the charge of misappropriation against the respondent No, 2 has not been established. In our view, the findings of the learned respondent No, 1 are correct. We are satisfied that the D conclusion and inferences drawn on the evidence are neither perverse nor contrary to evidence on record.
12. Therefore, we find no force in this petition which is consequently dismissed in limine. A short order was passed on 18th August, 1983, and the reasons for short order have been stated. 19-82 PLC 17