(Rtd ) Ali Nawaz Bndhani, J.-This appeal arises against order of Sind Labour Court No. III, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition on 20th May, 1985.
2. The facts may be narrated as that the appellant Khawaja Sethi Muhammad Moinuddin was appointed as a clerk on 8th January, 1969, and subsequently promoted on 1st January, 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 bad fabricated figures in respect of past import performances of Guarantor Messers Asbco Traders and over estimated credit worthineis 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 anamolies taking pi tea at the branch despite knowledge that unauthorized LCs were being established at the branch.
3. The appellant submitted his explanation to the charge-sheet wherein it was already stated by him that he had been asked by the Officer Incharge of his branch to fill up the proforma of prop )sal for the above LC to seek approval of the Zone 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 a signel 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 of 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 11th April, 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 {regularities 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 thereof 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 Ethionamide on behalf of Messers Warrior Brest 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-wise L/C liability Register from February, 1980 onwards and as such the L/C liability and margin remained balanced for about eight months.
(3) Despite knowing that unauthorised L/Cs were being established (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 ne 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 monthly statement posting of margins balancing the L/C margins, preparation of statement 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 not be called workman and he has specially stated that he had no Power of Attorney to act on behalf of the respondent b ink. 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 analyse the charges enunciated in the change-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, Messers Aebco Traders and over-estimated credit worthiness of the importers and guarantors. The explanations given by the appellant is that he was asked by the Officer Incharge of his branch to fill up the proforma of proposal for the above LC 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 Messers Aebco Traders which had been approved by the Zonal Office. Th t with the material and approved 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 a d 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 tie Guarantors or Importers. It has come in evidence that copy of Ex. B showing that the Zonsi Head had recommended the approval of the L/C in question in the following words:- "Discussed with Mr. Malik 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 Exbt. B which was merely copied out, no liability could be fixed on the appellant and surely he has no 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 forge, to trump up or to falsely make out act What the appellant has done in the present case, admittedly was to copy out the sanctioned document of past performance of Messers Aebco Trade s which had been approved by the Zonal Head. By copying out this admittedly sanctioned doc .Meat 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 sot compare the figures copied out by the appellant with the figures in Annexure -D' which was the previously sanctioned L/proposal 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 charges preferred against the appellant. This disposes of the first charge.
10. In the 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 electrical staff in dealing within 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 un-authorisedly 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 he presumed against the appellant The learned Labour Court has also ignored the fact that the appellant being a workman, it was n it his responsibility to report against the superior officer or to supervise their function which normally also were not within his knowledge.
12. The third charge against the appellant was 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 Labour Court and I hereby set it aside. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith. The reinstatement is without back benefits. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.