DECISION This is an appeal filed by Messrs Habib Bank Limited, against n impugned order dated 7-8-1983, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.1, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent workman, under section 25-A, I.R.O.. 1.969.
2. Briefly the facts are that the respondent was a permanent workman employed in the appellants Bank. That on 1-9-1980, the respondent was issued a charge-sheet, Annexure 'A' of the record of the Labour E Court. That, as an explanation of the respondent to this charge-sheet was not found satisfactory; therefore, a domestic enquiry was held against him. That, thereafter, a second show- cause notice was also issued to him and subsequently, the respondent was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 11-7-1981 (Annexure 'C'). That, thereupon the respondent had submitted a departmental appeal, which was turned, down, vide letter, dated 27-9-1981 (Annexure 'E'). That, finally the respondent submitted his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O 1969, before the learned Labour Court.
3. The case of the appellant Bank before the Labour Court is that they had raised some legal objections in regard to the status of the respondent and the maintainability of his grievance petition. That, or merits, it was submitted that the charges against the respondent were fully proved in an independent and impartial domestic enquiry.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined.
The learned Labour Court allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard the respondent, in person, as his Advocate was not present. An application for adjournment by Mr. Khalid Javed, the learned Advocate for the appellant Bank was rejected. None was present on behalf of the appellant Bank. Therefore, I have carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case.
6. It was the case of the appellant Bank before the learned Labour Court that the respondent was an officer of the bank and was not a 'workman', thus, his petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 was not maintainable, as the respondent was placed in Officers cadre. In this behalf the appellant Bank has relied upon a number of authorities, reported in 1983 PLC 264, 1982 PLC 294, 1982 PLC 323 and on an unreported case of Supreme Court in Appeal No. K. 89 of 1975 decided on 12-8-1975, wherein it was pleaded on behalf of the bank and the applicant, admittedly, was initially appointed as Manager of various branches of the bank. However, all these authorities were distinguishable as the facts and circumstances of the present case were different. It was contended that as the grievance notice was not served upon the appellant Bank by the respondent, therefore, his grievance petition was not maintainable.
7. It was submitted by the respondent that admittedly he was initially '--appointed as a clerk and even after getting Officers cadre. He continued to perform clerical duties. He reiterated his duties as had been described by him in sub-paras. 'A' to 'J' of paragraph No. 2 of his affidavit-in-evidence before the Labour Court. He asserted that nothing has been brought on record by the appellant Bank to controvert his claim that he was performing the duties of clerical nature. The respondent pleaded that he was neither an employer nor he has committed any misconduct as had been charged. The respondent claimed that the appellant Bank did not produce before the Labour Court to either the Enquiry Officer who held the alleged enquiry' against hire or any supporting witness, or had submitted the enquiry proceedings or any other document to substantiate their claim that was not a workman or he had committed any alleged misconduct. He further contended that there was no eye-witness or a person fully conversant with the charges against him, hence, there was neither any independent witness or any authentic documentary evidence against him before the learned Labour Court and so, the reasoning as well as legal and factual position discussed by the learned Labour Court in its impugned order are quite correct cogent and reasonable, thus, the impugned order be maintained. The respondent lastly contended that a grievance notice, dated 24-10-1981, Annexure 'V' was duly and properly served upon the appellant Bank, therefore, it was well within time. I hold it as correct.
8. Taking into consideration the legal and factual position oral as well as documentary evidence on record and all other related circumstances of the case, I hold that the respondent was a 'workman' under the law, hence entitled to maintain his grievance petition before the Labour Court and that the charges against him were not proved, therefore, his dismissal from service was quite unlawful and so is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the impugned order is maintained and the respondent is directed to be re-instated in service with full back benefits forth with.
Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.