The appeal captioned above challenges the decision, dated 4-11-1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad Camp at Sargodha directing the re- instatement of the respondent in service without passing any order with regard to back benefits.
2. There were three charges against the respondent. Two of them were of misappropriation of Rs.2,500 and Rs.1,754 and the third was that an Inward Call Bill for Rs.18,035.24 was received in the Branch in January, 1981 and was returned unpaid, but T.R. Was issued in February 1981 although the amount had not been deposited till then but had been deposited on 24-3-1981. The learned lower Court has not recorded any finding with regard to the charge. So far as the third charge--sheet is concerned, the charge-sheet is vague, inasmuch as the date of issuance of T.R. Is not given therein.
So far as the charges of misappropriation of Rs.2,500 and Rs.1,754 are concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to advance any convincing argument to show that they were brought home to the respondent.
3. On the point of workman the learned counsel for the appellant has made reference to power of attorney Exh . R-11 and has cited 1983 PLC 810. He has placed on the record copy of an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in Civil Appeal No. K-16 of 1974 on 22-8-1$82. No doubt in the ruling cited by the learned counsel for the appellant it has been held that a holder of power of attorney is not a workman, but in the cases in which the Supreme Court delivered the decision the employees concerned may be performing the powers and functions given in the power of attorney, but in the present case there is no evidence that the powers and functions given to the respondent in the power of attorney, copy of which is Exh.R-11, were being actually exercised by him at the time he was charge-sheeted and dismissed from service. Mere holding of power of attorney is not sufficient and performance of the functions given in the power of attorney is necessary. Learned counsel for the appellant has not made reference to any evidence from which it may appear that according to the nature of duties, the respondent was not covered by the definition of workman.
The definition given in section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is very were and only those persons cannot claim to be workmen who are either covered by the definition of A employer or come within the exceptions (a) and (b). If it had been proved that the respondent was performing all those duties and exercising all those powers which were given to him by the power of attorney Exh.R-11, he would have become an agent and according to the definition of employer, an agent is an employer and not a workman. Learned lower Court, therefore, rightly declared the respondent as workman. However, the case of the appellant is supported by 1985 PLC 1053, wherein Lahore High Court has held that a bank employee who has been removed from service ceases to remain workman and that for the violation of any provision of Wage Commission Award, the employees of B the bank can go to the N.I.R.C. And not to the Labour Courts.
4. An application was given by the respondent to the effect that the appeal was not filed by competent authorities. Opportunity of hearing on the point was afforded to the learned counsel for the parties and they have argued on the point. The grievance petition was against Habib Bank Limited, Head Office, Karachi through Mr. M.Y. Dalia, Senior Controller and Senior Vice-President, and Mr. Inayatullah Khan, Senior Vice-President Personnel Division. No objection was raised in the written statement that the said persons could not be sued. The order of dismissal is signed by the abovementioned two person's, therefore, the respondent rightly sued the Habib Bank Limited through the said officers. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that Habib Bank Limited being a juristic person could be sued and since the appeal has been brought by Habib Bank Limited, it is immaterial who signed the memo of appeal on behalf of the Bank. The argument is without force. In civil cases no doubt juristic person can be sued in its own name but in labour cases the employer is to be sued as the word 'employer' appears in section 25-A(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance,1969. In the dismissal order covered to the respondent it was not disclosed as to who had actually passed the dismissal order, therefore, the respondent was justified in suing the persons who had signed the dismissal order conveyed to him. Section 37 (3) states that any person aggrieved by an award or decision may prefer appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal.. The word is not 'employer' but the word is 'party'. Party means party to the case from the decision of which the appeal is being preferred. So only that party is aggrieved who was party in the grievance petition which had been accepted-: Since before the learned lower Court Habib Bank Limited was represented by Mr. M.Y. Dalia and Mr. Inayatullah Khan, only they were competent to sign the memo of appeal on behalf of Habib Bank Limited. But the memo of appeal bears the signatures of Zonal Chief,I Sargodha. The power of attorney in favour of the learned counsel for the appellant too is signed by, the same officer. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal was brought by the incompetent person is correct.
5. No doubt in view of the ruling of Lahore High Court reported in 1985 PLC 1053 the respondent is not a workman but since no proper appeal brought by any competent person is before me, on its basis the grievance petition cannot be disallowed.
6. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal fails and is dismissed.