' This appeal arises from the decision dated 22nd September 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed.
2. The appellant was class II officer at the time embezzlement of Rs, 10,98,000 took place in the branch. He was charge-sheeted and was asked to file reply within 48 hours of the issuance of the charge-sheet. The appellant sent the reply by registered post, which reached the bank after the time allowed by the Management. The charge-sheet is dated 14th December, 1977 and reply to it is dated 16th December, 1977. It is mentioned that the charge-sheet was received on 15th December, 1977 at about 1-00 a.m. In the reply to the charge-sheet, it is mentioned that on the same date on which he received the charge-sheet, a case had been got registered by the bank against him with the police. It has been said by the learned counsel for the appellant that if the appellant had delivered the reply personally, since a case had already been registered, he would have been got arrested. So for this reason the appellant sent reply by registered post. The respondent adopted a noval procedure by directing the appellant to reply to the charge-sheet within 48 hours of the issuance of it and not from the date of receipt of it. Practically only 24 hours were given. Within 24 hours the appellant could not submit reply by post. The only alternative for him was to deliver the reply personally. But as a case had been got registered by the management against him on the grounds on which charge-sheet was issued, the appellant was justified in his apprehension that if he had contacted the management personally to deliver the reply to the charge-sheet, he may be got arrested by the police in the case registered against him. In these circumstances, the reply could not be treated as belated. The reply was sent by post on 17th on which the order of dismissal was passed. Even though the reply to the charge-sheet had not been served by the respondent within the time allowed, yet it was necessary to hold enquiry after service of enquiry notice. The case was not such that without enquiry, it could be safely finalised. Sub-paras. 4 and 5 of paragraph 258 of the Wage Commission Award are clear on the point. Sub-para. (6) was not applicable. The date upto which reply to the charge-sheet could be sent was 16th but just on the following day the order of dismissal was passed. It displays undue haste on the part of the management.
3. The learned lower Court has dismissed the petition of the appellant on the sole ground that he was not a workman. Since the appellant was second class officer and admittedly was holding power-of-attorney Exh. R-3, the onus was upon him to show that in spite of all this, he, according to the nature of his duties, was a workman, but he did not produce any cogent evidence, except his own statement, which is only to the effect that his duty was clerical. He did not explain in his statement what work actually he had been doing on the strength of which it may be said that his duty was clerical. No copies of the clerical work alleged to have been done by him was brought on the record. Needless to say that to decide the point whether an employee is covered by the definition of workman, his main duties are to be considered. The duties ancillary to the main duties are not important for the decision of the point. The onus did not stand discharged by the sentence uttered by him in his statement that "The nature of my duties was clerical". He was subjected to lengthy cross-examination on the point of workman and the admissions made by him go to show that his duties were managerial. Exh. R-1 is the document indicating staff position on 30th June 1977. The appellant admitted his initials on this document alongwith the initials of the Manager. He does not say that he had by doing clerical work, prepared this document. What is the staff position at a particular time is not the function of the clerk to show but only an officer having managerial powers can do so. The signatures of the appellant on Exh. R-1, therefore, show that he was more than a clerk. The same may be said with regard to Exh. R-2, which shows the payment of bonus to the workers. Admittedly, it bears the signatures of the appellant alongwith the initials of the Manager. He admitted that every document of the bank was to be signed by an officer alongwith the signatures of the Manager. He also admitted his initials on statement Exhs. R-4 to R-15. He added that he had typed these statements, but admitted that on the asking of the Manager he had typed the documents, otherwise it did not fall in his duties to type them. These are various kinds of statements. Some pertain to provident fund and some are salary reconciliation statements for various months. Exhs. R-16 to R-30 are the petty cash statements and the appellant admitted his initials upon them alongwith the initials of the Manager. He did not claim that these statements were in his hand writing. Exhs. R-31, R-33 and R-34 are daily statements of affairs. The appellant admitted his initials on them also. Exh. R-32 is the statement of arrears of increments paid to clerical and non-clerical staff from 1st January, 1977 to 31st March 1977 and it bears the signatures of the appellant alongwith the initials of the Manager. Exh. R-36 is the certificate in favour of Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad Khan, Officer, for the salary drawn by him in the month of November, 1976. It bears the signatures of the appellant as well as of the Manager. Exh. R-37 is a document for the operation of grant of recreation allowance. It bears the signatures of the appellant as admitted by him. Exh.
R-41 is a statement of arrears of mobile salary paid to the officers from 1st May, 1977 to 31st October, 1977. It bears the initials of the appellant as well as of the Manager. Exhs. R-42 to R-66 bear the initials of the appellant in token of chceking of the cashier's book. Exhs. R-67 to R-80 are the copies of the scroll book bearing the checking initials of the appellant. Exhs. R-81 to R-133 are the copies of paying cashier's book, various entries of which bear the initials of the appellant in token of checking. Documents Exhs. R-134 to R-145 are reconciliation statements received from the Head Office and returned to the said Office after reconciliation. They bear the signatures of the appellant as well as of the Manager. The appellant, as admitted by him, was incharge of the lockers and was holding master-key. Without the application of the master-key the customer could not open the lock. The appellant was maintaining and signing key-register as custodian of the lockers. They are Exhs. R-146 to R-149 and bear his signatures. This was a most important kind of work, there- B fore, maintenance of the key-register was entrusted to him and maintaining those registers was his ancillary duty and not main duty. If he had not been the incharge of the lockers, it would not have been his duty to maintain the registers. Exhs. R-150 to R-158 are the attendance registers of the customers whose articles were lying in the lockers. They were maintained by the appellant and bear his signatures. This was also an ancillary duty of the appellant, inasmuch as he was the incharge of the lockers. The appellant had been signing receipt vouchers as approving officer after checking them and Exhs. R-159 to R-188 have been produced as specimen. The appellant added that he had been doing this work in routine, but in reality it was not a work of routine nature. It was his duty in the capacity of officer to check the entries and to put his signatures in token of varification. The S. D. Rs, and D. Ds. Cheques were cancelled by him and he used to put his signatures alongwith the signatures of the Manager. They are secret documents. The appellant added that he had been maintaining these registers, but since he admitted that they cannot be issued under the signatures of a clerk, therefore, this was a work of responsibility. He admitted that they were filled in by a clerk. So his saying that he was maintaining these registers did not mean that he was making entries with his own hands. Exhs. R-I89 to R-195 have been produced as specimen, Exhs. R-196 to R-213 are record of various correspondence bearing the initials and signatures of the appellant. As admitted by him, he was the custodian of one key of the cash chest, whereas remaining two keys were with the Manager and the Cashier. He admitted that the cash chest could be opened only by the application of all the three keys at one time.
' The appellant also admitted that he was holding power-of-attorney Exh. R-3 but added that it was executed in his favour when he was a clerk. In the power of attorney Exh. R-3 he is mentioned as officer and not a clerk. Even if it be said that at that time he was clerk since afterwards he became an officer and started porforming all those duties which have been mentioned above, he ceased to remain a clerk and fell in the category of Manager. If he had not been exercising powers which a responsible officer performs, of course mere execution of power-of-attorney in his favour would not be sufficient to exclude him from the definition of workman, but he have been performing the duties of most important nature and responsibility, therefore, it cannot be said that all those duties were only of routine nature without the application of experience, mind, brain, intellectual capacities, initiative and drive. A holder of power-of-attorney becomes an agent of the bank and an agent comes within the definition of employer. Any person who comes within the definition of employer cannot come under the definition of workman as is clear from section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The learned lower Court in these circumstances was justified in holding that the appellant was not a workman.
4. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.