DECISION ' These five appeals arise of a common order passed by the VIIth Labour Court, Sukkur, on 14th February, 1983 whereby he has accepted the grievance petitions of the five respondents.
2. The facts are that the respondent, Ellahi Bux was appointed as Clerk on 20th December, 1972 ; respondent Azad Ali Shaikh was appointed as Assistant Cashier on 20th December, 1973 respondent Moula Bux was appointed as Junior Clerk on 17th June, 1974 ; respondent Imtiaz Hussain was appointed as Assistant Cashier on 20th January, 1973 ; and Ashraf Ahmad was appointed as Assistant Cashier on 27th November. 1973 by the appellant-Bank and they were posted at Shikarpur Branch. All of them have stated that they were continuously working satisfactorily. On 110th May,,1977, they were placed under suspension. Against the order of suspension they moved the Labour Court under section 25-A.I.R.O., 1969, which was decided on 9th January, 1980 in their favour. This Tribunal also dismissed the appellant Bank's appeal.
3. All the respondents were served with the notices of imposition of penalties, dated 16th June, 1980 containing allegations pertaining to the years 1975 and 1977. The respondents replied those notices and denied the allegations. Then, again a second show-cause notice was given on 8th September, 1981 which was mere repetition of the earlier notice, dated 16th June, 1980. They replied to the second show-cause notice also and denied the allegation. Thereafter without, holding departmental enquiry the respondents were dismissed from service, vide order dated 18th October, 1981. They preferred departmental appeals were rejected on 19th January, 1982. Thereafter, notice of grievance was served and the grievance petitions were filed.
4. In their reply statements, the appellants maintained that the respondents were served with show-cause notice and second show-cause notice respectively on 16th June, 1980. Their replies were found unsatisfactory and in the circumstances leading towards their guilt they were legally dismissed from service according to statutory rules of service of appellants' organization and principle of natural justice. They have raised legal pleas that the appellant organization is being controlled and managed by the Federal Government of Pakistan and that the appellant organization is having its own statutory rules and the law of Standing Order Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable, therefore, the grievance petition is not maintainable and the Labour Court has no jurisdiction. The respondents filed their affidavits in evidence and the appellants filed affidavit in evidence of Ali Ahmad Khan, Manager Administration in each case of the respondents.
5. The Labour Court framed the following two issues :-
(i) Whether the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 are applicable to the employees of the National Bank of Pakistan ; and
(ii) Whether the respondents have been illegally dismissed from the service.
6. 1 have heard Mr. Mamoon Qazi, the learned Advocate for the appellant, National Bank of Pakistan and Mr. M. L. Shahani, Advocate on behalf of the respondents.
7. Mr. Mamoon Qazi, the learned counsel of the National Bank of Pakistan led me through the historical perspective that the National Bank of Pakistan has statutory rules which exclude the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. His arguments ultimately boiled down to the Wage Commission Award in pursuance of the amendment of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, section 38(e). The two Wage Commission Awards were, namely, the Wage Commission Award of 1975 and the Wage Commission Award of 1978. National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules of 1980 became operative.
The question was to be examined whether these rules were applicable to the respondents and whether the application of these rules exclude or bar the application of Standing Orders or the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts.
8. I have read with benefit the matter, reported in 1983 PLC 468 and am tempted to quote the following paragraph of the said case :- "There remains the question what rules were applicable to the respondent and whether the application of these rules excludes or bars the application of Standing Orders or the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts. In considering this issue, the important factors to remember are that the respondent was charge-sheeted on 16th February, 1978 in respect of charges relating to the period from 7th July, 1976 to 31st October, 1977, and that he was dismissed, vide office order, dated 10th April, 1980 while his departmental appeal was withheld as intimated to him, vide letter, dated 7th February, 1981. In the case of N. B. P. v. Nizamuddin Mehar it was pointed out by this Tribunal that the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1973, which were previously applicable to employees of the National Bank of Pakistan, stood superseded at the relevant time, by the Disciplinary and Efficiency Rules for Banks and Financial Institutions, 1975, and since these rules are not statutory rules but in the nature of and Award by the Commission as provided in section 38-D, I. R.
0., the employees of the National Bank of Pakistan were not exempted under the proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968, from the provisions of the Standing Orders. In the later case of Altaf Ahmed Shaikh v. National Bank of Pakistan (Appeal No, SUK-33/82), decided on 17th March, 1982 the question was further considered as to which rules were applicable to employees of the National Bank of Pakistan and whether the application of those rules bars the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts. The facts in that case were somewhat similar to the facts of the present case. In that case Altaf Ahmed Shaikh, who was working as an Assistant in the Shikarpur Branch of the N. B. P. Was suspended from service by an order, dated 10th May, 1977. The suspended period is said to have continued for 3 years. Altaf Ahmed Shaikh challenged the orders of his suspension before the Labour Court at Sukkar which held the suspension to be invalid. The respondent Bank preferred an appeal but it was unsuccessful. The National Bank of Pakistan, therefore, on 15th June, 1980 served a charge-sheet on Altaf Ahmad under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules for Banks and Financial Institutions in respect of acts said to have been committed by him between February, 1976 to February, 1977. However, this charge-sheet was later withdrawn and a fresh show-cause notice, dated 8th September, 1981 was issued against Altaf Ahmad under the N. B. P. (Staff) Service Rules, 1980. The new show-cause notice contained the same allegations as in the earlier charge-sheet. Altaf Ahmed submitted an explanation to this show-cause notice but it was not found satisfactory and he was dismissed from service by order, dated 18th October, 1981. Altaf Ahmed Shaikh then preferred an appeal to the President of the Bank but he obtained no relief. He accordingly filed a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court. Reiterating its view taken in the case of Nizamuddin Mehar, it was held by this Tribunal that the application of the 1975 rules did not exclude the application of the Standing Orders and consequently the competence and the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts to deal with the individual grievance under clause, (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25-A, I. R.
0., was not affected. The mandatory requirement of clause (4) of Standing Order 15 is that if a workman is to be dismissed for an act of misconduct such act must be brought to the notice of the workman within one month of its commission or the act coming to the notice of the employer. In the instant case the respondent was charge-sheeted on 16th February, 1978 for acts of misconduct said to have been committed by him in the years 1976 and 1977. The acts of misconduct on which the dismissal of the respondent is based were thus not brought to his notice within the period provided in clause (4) of Standing Order 15. It was however, contended by Mr. Kazi, the learned counsel for the appellant Bank, that the said provisions did not apply to employees of the Bank by reason of this overriding effect which the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of 1975 have under section 38-I, I. R.
0. The said section, however, does not make other laws in-applicable to workers whose terms and conditions have been fixed by the Wage Commission under the I.R.O. But provides that the provisions of section 38-A to 38-B shall have effect notwithstanding anything therewith contained in any other law. At best, therefore, if there be any inconsistency between the Efficiency and Discipline Rules for Banks and Financial Institutions, 1975 and the Standing Orders, the latter to the extent of the inconsistency would give way. I, however, find no inconsistency between the said rules and the provisions contained in Standing Order 15 (4) requiring the bringing of misconduct to the notice of the workman within one month. From the mere fact that the rules of 1975 do not contain any provision in this behalf no inconsistency can be presumed (see A Javed v. N.I.R.C. I am, therefore, of opinion that the dismissal of the respondent cannot be upheld as the charges on which the dismissal is based were not brought to his notice within the period prescribed in Standing Order 15 (4)."
9. I am also referred to the case, Altaf Sheikh v. National Bank of Pakistan . I am once again tempted to quote paragraph 8 of the decision as under :- "In compliance with the suggestion of the Second Wage Commission Award, the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1980 were framed in supersession of the rules of 1973. Sub-rule (2) of rule 1 of the said rules provides that they shall be deemed to have, taken effect from 1st January, 1980, but cases already decided before' the commencement of the said rules shall not be reopened if the decision taken is in conflict with any of the provisions of the present rules. These rules admittedly have not been made under the rule-making powers contained in section 32 of the National Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1949. No reference to the said Ordinance has been made in the rules. Further more, the previous approval of the Federal Government to the making of these rules has not been obtained, as required by section 32 of Ordinance XIX of 1979. It was, therefore, frankly conceded by Mr. Mamoon Kazi that the Staff Rules of 1980, cannot be considered to be statutory rules but were framed by the bank and its Board in pursuance of the Award of the Second Wage Commission."1
10. The conclusion, therefore, is that Mr. Mamoon Kazi has conceded that these rules are not statutory rules as required by section 32 of the Ordinance XIX of 1949. The rules came into operation in 1980 and had no retrospective effect to cover the case of 1976 and 1977.
11. Thus, the issue, therefore, framed by the Labour Court with respect to the application of the Standing Orders is answered in view of the above discussion that the Standing Orders Ordinance is very much applicable.
12. As regards the other contentions of Mr. Mamoon Qazi in the instant appeals that the grievance petitions are time-barred and the grievance petitions are not in proper form. The notices were served on the respondents on 15th June, 1980 and 8th September 1981. These notices were first to be served on the respondents. Although they were suspended in the month of May, 1977, by a general suspension order referring to an enquiry pending against them but was the enquiry, one does not know. The actual show-cause notice was on 15th June, 1980 and 8th September 1981.
Therefore, on computation, the applications were in time.
13. The contention raised by Mr. Mamoon Qazi is that the grievance petition is not in proper form.
Following is section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 :- "25-A. Redress of individual grievances. 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 Collective Bargaining Agent, within three months of the day on which cause of such grievance arises."
14. It is to be noted that an application under section 25-A, I. R.
0. 1969, is a simple application and it can be filed by even a shop stewar or Collective Bargaining Agent. This objection of Mr. Mamoon Qazi also fails.
15. The upshot of the above discussion and reference of case-laws that the Standing Orders are very much applicable and that the enquiry was necessary before dismissing the respondents. I, therefore, dismiss these five appeals by this single decision. 1982 PLC 683