DECISION This appeal arises against the order of Sind Labour Court No.III Karachi, who has dismissed the grievance petition on20-5-1985.
2. The facts may be narrated as that the appellant, Khawaja Sethi Muhammad Moinuddin was appointed as a clerk on 8-1-1969, and subsequently promoted on 1-1-1979 to Grade III Officer where, however, his duties continued to remain primarily and essentially clerical in nature. That on or about 19th February, the appellant received a show-cause notice alleging therein that the appellant had fabricated figures in respect of past import performances of guaranteed Messrs Aebco Traders and overestimated credit worthiness of the importers and guarantors. It was also alleged that the appellant did not record L/C. Liabilities and register from February 1980 onwards and did not inform the Zonal Office/Head Office of the anomalies taking place at the branch despite knowledge that unauthorized L/Cs. Were being established at the branch.
3. The appellant submitted his explanation to the charge-sheet wherein it was clearly stated by him that he had been asked by the Officer Incharge of his branch to fill up the pro forma of proposal for the above L/C to seek approval of the Zonal Office, and was provided with a copy of the approved proposal of Messrs Aebco Traders containing details of past performance of the said Messrs Aebco Traders which had been approved by the Zonal Office. That with this material and approved proposal by the Zonal Office, the appellant simply filled up the proforma of proposal copying out the earlier figures of past import performance of the guarantor and handed the same over to the officer incharge of Foreign Exchange Department. That the proposal was neither signed by the appellant nor was it his duty to verify the trustworthiness of the guarantors or importers. It was also explained that the appellant had a heavy pressure of work which was assigned to him and which was pointed out by him to the Branch Manager and that nevertheless after some delay he completed the balancing of the Register which was duly checked and verified by his superiors even before the issuance of the charge-sheet. In short, he pleaded innocence.
4. In the reply statement, the respondents challenged the maintainability of the application on the main ground that the appellant was not a workman and was an officer of Grade III and was governed by rules governing to officers of the bank. It was that a regular enquiry was conducted by an Enquiry Officer who gave a finding of guilty on the basis of which the impugned order of termination was passed on 11-4-1982.
5. I have heard the counsels of the parties in this appeal. The charge-sheet may be enumerated as follows ---It has been observed that during your posting in Foreign Exchange Department, Talpur Road , Branch, you have committed irregularities of serious nature which amount to breach of trust and are likely to cause financial loss to the bank.
You are, therefore, called upon to submit your explanation within 48 hours from receipt hereof on the following charges levelled against you and also explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against you: --
(1) In the L/C: proposal for Rs.350,000 for the import of Etidonomide on behalf of Messrs Warrior Bros; you have fabricated figures in respect of past import performance of the guarantors, Messrs Aebco Traders and over-estimated credit worthiness of the importers and guarantors.
(2)You did not record L/C. Liabilities and margin in party were L/C liability Register from February 1980 onwards and as such the L/C. Liability and margin remained unbalanced for about eight months.
(3)Despite knowing that unauthorized L/Cs were being established at the branch in various cases, requirements of S.B.P. Marginal restrictions were also not being fulfilled, you prepared and signed the relative vouchers of L/C. Liabilities and margin and did not inform WHO of the anomalities taking place at the branch. This shows an act of concealment of facts from the bank on your part.
Sd. Vice-President.---
6. The first and foremost question is whether the appellant was essentially doing clerical work and as such was a workman. In this respect, the appellant enumerated the nature of his duties in paragraph 3 of his application and re-affirmed the same in his affidavit-in-evidence. Looking to the duty list of the appellant, it appears that the work entrusted to the appellant is to prepare vouchers, making of fortnightly and month1v statements, posting of margins, balancing the L.C, margins, preparation of statement of monthly State Bank of Pakistan returns, submission of bills of entry, calculation of interest vouchers. On the face of these clerical duties, the appellant could be called workman and he has specifically stated that he had no power of attorney to act on behalf of the respondent Bank. So, in nut-shell he is a workman within the meaning of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. This position is not rebutted by the respondent bank in their affidavits.
7. Having decided that the appellant is a workman, I shall go to analyze the charges enunciated in the charge-sheet. The explanation given by the appellant at the initial stage is on the record.
8. The first charge is that he has fabricated the figures in respect of the past import performance of the guarantors, Messrs Aebco Traders and over-estimated credit worthiness of the importers and guarantors. The explanation given by the appellant is that he was asked by the Officer Incharge of his branch to fill up the pro forma of proposal for the above L/C to seek approval of the Zonal Office, and he was provided a copy of approved proposal of Messrs Aebco Traders containing details of past performance of the said Messrs Aebco Traders which had been approved by the Zonal Office, That with the material and approved by the Zonal Office, the appellant simply filled up the pro forma of proposal copying out the earlier figures of past import performance of the guarantor and handed the same over to the Officer Incharge of Foreign Exchange Department.
That the proposal was neither signed by the appellant nor was it his duty to verify the trustworthiness of the guarantors or importers. It has come in evidence that copy of Exh. B showing that the Zonal Head had recommended the approval of the L/C in question in the following words:- ---Discussed with Mr.Walik Manager. He is sure that the importers will not avail any LTM/LTE facility for this imports and would retire shipper documents from their own cash resources on representation.---
9. The appellant stated that this endorsement had been signed by the Zonal Head who was responsible for the approval of the L/C. Since the document Exh. 'B' which was merely copied out, no liability could be fixed on the appellant and surely he has not fabricated or wrote his own imaginary figures. The Labour Court had wrongly applied the law and did not appreciate that the ordinary meaning of ---fabrication--- is to forgo, to trump up or to falsely make out etc. What the appellant has done in the present case, admittedly was to copy out the sanctioned document of past performance of Messrs Aebco Traders which had been approved by the Zonal Head. By copying out this admittedly sanctioned B document which is Annexure 'D' of the respondent document, it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that the appellant had fabricated the document. The admission of the Enquiry Officer to the effect that he did', not compare the figures copied out by the appellant with the figures in Annexure 'D' which was the previously sanctioned L/C propos, by the Zonal Head clearly showed that the Enquiry Officer had not applied his mind to the facts of the case in relation to the charge preferred against the appellant. This disposes of the first charge
10. In respect of the second charge, the learned Labour Court has failed to apply his mind to the position in Law that mere negligence of duty is not a misconduct within the meaning of Standing Orders Ordinance 1968 and that the explanation of the appellant that he was over worked since he did not have assistance of any co-worker or clerical staff in C dealing with the volume of work, was not rebutted either during the enquiry proceedings or before the Labour Court. In these circumstances the finding of the learned Labour Court that the appellant was intentionally negligent was against the evidence on record and amounted to a complete misreading of evidence.
11. In support of the third charge, the learned Labour Court has acted on mere conjectures and surmises by holding that it could not be possible for L/C could be opened unauthorizedly without the knowledge of the appellant. That in the admitted situation, when none of the L/C proposal were forwarded under the signature of the appellant and his job was only to prepare the L/C figures, no such knowledge could be presumed against the appellant. The learned Labour Court has also ignored the fact that the appellant being a workman, it was not his responsibility to report against the superior officers or to supervise their functions which normally also were not within his knowledge.
12. The third charge against the appellant also not proved.
13. These charges are not proved. The appellant had neither fabricated the figures nor added anything nor suppressed any fact. I, therefore, would not agree with the impugned order of the learned E Labour Court and I hereby set it aside. The appellant is directed to be re-instated in service forthwith. The re-instatement is without back benefits. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.