DECISION This is an appeal filed by Messrs Habib Bank Limited against the impugned order, dated 4-3-1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was permanently employed in the appellant bank with effect from 13-9-1978. On 15-3-1981, the services of the respondent were terminated by the appellant bank as he was said to have committed misconduct and that termination was then assailed before the learned Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, vide grievance petition No.65/81 under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, and that the learned Labour Court, vide its order, dated 31-5-1982 by setting aside the termination order, had ordered the appellant bank to reinstate the respondent in service with full back benefits. On an appeal by the appellant bank, this Tribunal, vide its order, dated 15-8-1982, had set aside the order of the learned Labour Court and also the termination order passed by the appellant bank and also directed the appellant bank to hold fresh enquiry against the respondent which was to be completed within 4 months of the said order. The appellant bank, in view of the order of this Tribunal, held fresh enquiry against the respondent on 22nd, 23rd and 25th of September, 1982, and as the respondent was again found guilty of the misconduct in the fresh enquiry, therefore, vide letter, dated 1-12-1982, the services of the respondent were again terminated by the appellant bank. Thereby the respondent again approached the learned Labour Court who had again allowed the grievance petition of the respondent and directed the appellant bank to reinstate him in service with full back benefits. Hence, the present appeal against this impugned order.
3. The respondent was issued three separate charge-sheets, dated 12-5-1980, 17-6-1980 and 7-9- 1980, namely, (1) the applicant refused to receive order of posting to Chore Branch; (2) he remained absent from duty from 31-5-1980 to 26-6-1980; and (3) he again absented from duty from 16-8-1980 to 7-9-1980. The case of the respondent was that these charge-sheets were not actually served upon him and that neither the respondent was afforded an opportunity to defend himself nor the enquiry was fair, impartial, legal and in accordance with the requirements of the Law. That, though the respondent was Grade III officer but nature of his duties was clerical and manual and that he was not holding any Power of Attorney, and that he was victimized due to the grudge of the superiors in the appellant bank.
4. The case of the appellant bank, was that the previous order of termination of services of the respondent, dated 15-3-1981 was proper and legal though it was set aside by the Labour Court and that the respondent was again terminated after holding enquiries as per law and so the grievance petition was not maintainable. Further, that the grievance petition was incompetent because the respondent was serving as an Officer of the Bank and so the Labour Court had no jurisdiction.
5. Both the parties submitted their respective affidavit in evidence alongwith the documents and they were duly cross-examined. The learned Labour Court had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, hence this appeal.
6. I have heard Mr. Khalid Javed, the learned Advocate for the appellant bank and Mr. M.L. Shahani, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent and have carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case.
7. I would first discuss the two-.Fold legal objections raised by the appellant bank. Mr. Khalid Javed, the learned Advocate for the appellant-bank has firstly contended that the person who seeks exercise of jurisdiction of a Court has to prove that he is entitled to get the relief being a person concerned under the Law and in the instant case the respondent did not disclose his status as a 'workman' and even in his grievance notice, he maintained absolute silence on his status and in his cross-examination he admitted to be a Grade III Officer of the appellant bank, therefore, in view of this legal position the respondent was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969 before the learned Labour Court. On the other hand, Mr. M.L. Shahani, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent has contended that simply a status or designation, unless the nature of his duties as such are proved through concrete documentary evidence, does not bar him from invoking the jurisdiction of a Labour Court under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969. He contended that there is nothing on record to establish that the appellant bank has rebutted the contention of the respondent being a 'workman', anywhere in any proceedings before the learned Labour Court . The respondent had very specifically detailed the nature of his duties throughout in his pleadings, but neither in any reply statement by the appellant bank nor in the cross-examination of the respondent had ever attempted to put a single word controverting the nature of duties of the respondent, therefore, it is an admitted position that the respondent was performing clerical duties, though he was designated as Grade III Officer and thus, he was entitled to maintain grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969. Therefore, in view of this admitted position, I see no force in the contention of Mr. Khalid Javed. The learned Advocate for the appellant bank and I would hold that the respondent was a 'workman', though he was designated as Officer, Grade III so he was entitled to maintain his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court
8. It was next contended by Mr. Khalid Javed, the learned Advocate for the appellant bank that it is run by and under the authority of the Federal Government and has its own statutory rules of services and that the Standing Orders Ordinance is not applicable to such a nationalized bank and further the employees of 3 nationalized bank cannot approach the labour Court which had no jurisdiction in respect of their grievances. He referred to Section 1 of Standing Orders Ordinance as well as to the Banks Nationalization Ordinance, 1974 and also to Para 258 of Wage Commission Award which framed disciplinary rules, therefore, in view of this legal position, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to maintain a grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969. I see no force, also in this contention of Mr. Khalid Javed, the learned Advocate for the appellant bank. Relying on a number of relevant Authorities reported in 1980 PLC at page 368, PLC 1983 at page 468 and 1982 CLC at page 683 etc. Wherein it was held that Standing Orders Ordinance is not applicable by virtue of its Section 1, subsection (4). The Section 1, subsection (4) provide that where there are statutory rules in conducting an enquiry or taking disciplinary action, the Standing Orders Ordinance would not apply. The point is that the Wage Commission Award is only an Award and the Rules framed under such an Award are not statutory rules. The relevant observations are as under:- "No doubt, section 38-C provides that .He decision of the Wage Commission is to be binding on all employees concerned with the decision in relation to their workers and every such worker is to be entitled to be paid the Wages and governed by the terms and conditions determined by tie Wages Commission but there is no provision to the effect that the protection afforded to workers under any law will be eroded or eliminated by reasons of Industrial Relations Ordinance is a beneficial piece of legislation made in the interest of workers and unless a specific provision is made curtailing the right or the remedy available to a worker under the said Ordinance, it would not be correct, in my opinion to construe the provisions in the Ordinance relating to the Wages Commission as doing away with the, rights of and the reliefs available to the workers under other Laws or under provisions of I.R.O. Even if it were assumed for arguments sake that of a worker to approach the Labour Court under section 25-A , I . R.O. For enforcement of a right guaranteed to him under the award of the Wage Commission itself cannot be denied."
Mr. M.L. Shahani, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent, in support of his contention on this legal issue, has referred to me a latest unreported Judgment of the Division Bench of Sind High Court in Constitutional Petition No.D-2 of 1986, dated 2-9-1986 in the case of Zonal Chief, Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., Larkana v. Ubedullah and another. Therefore, I hold that the Wage Commission Awards C and the Rules framed under such Awards are not statutory rule, and the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, does apply in the present case, so, the learned Labour Court had jurisdiction to maintain the' grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.
9. On merits, it was argued by Mr- Khalid Javed, the learned Advocate for the appellant bank that as the charges of misconduct against the respondent were fully established in a lawfully and properly, held fair domestic enquiry in which the respondent had not only fully participated, but, he was also afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself, so, his services were rightly terminated by the appellant bank, thus, the respondent being not an aggrieved person, could not maintain his grievance petition under section 25-A, I. R. O. 1969. On the other hand, Mr. M.L. Shahani, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent has contended that it is an admitted position that none of the three charge-sheets against the respondent were brought on record to establish that they were actually served upon him, therefore, the learned Labour Court had rightly held that the respondent was not found guilty of the charge of misconduct with regard to the first charge-sheet, dated 12-5-1980. As regards the other two charge-sheets, dated 17-6-1980 and 7-9-1980, it was contended by Mr. M.L. Shahani, the learned Counsel for the respondent that the learned Labour Court had thoroughly discussed the evidence brought on record by the parties and the admissions of the appellant bank on the factual position, therefore, it had rightly rejected, also these two charges against the respondent workman. Mr. Khalid Javed, the learned Advocate for the appellant bank has failed to shake the admitted position on these two charge-sheets also. I am, therefore. Of the firm view that the learned Labour Court has rightly rejected both these charges also against the respondent workman and there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order, dated 4-3-1985.
10. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would maintain the impugned order and dismiss this appeal. The respondent is directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits forthwith. The amount of back benefits deposited by the appellant bank in this Tribunal be paid to the respondent after due verification.
A.E./976/Lb.S.