DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant bank against an impugned order, dated 24-3-1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. V1, Hyderabad, who had allowed the grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, of the respondent and directed his re--instatement with full back benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed by the appellant bank as Godown- keeper and his duties were said to be manual and clerical as to check stock of raw cotton and cotton yarn and by virtue of this nature of job, the respondent claimed to be covered with the provisions of Labour Laws including the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, so, he was demanding the payment of his withheld bonus, increment, medical allowances etc. For the last four years resulting in that the appellant bank had got annoyed with him and in consequence thereof, he was served with a false and concocted charge-sheet, dated 13-8-1983. The respondent had replied to this charge-sheet on 20-9-1983, but, a departmental enquiry was conducted and ultimately, he was dismissed from service on 5-12-1983. Thereafter, 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 learned Labour Court was that as the respondent having been appointed on parties Account, was never a regular employee and that as he was found guilty of gross misconduct, therefore, he was rightly dismissed from service after having conducted a fair, lawful and impartial domestic enquiry, therefore, the respondent could not maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined.
Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has allowed the grievance petition of the respondent directing his reinstatement in service with full back benefits, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Khalid Javed, the learned Advocate for the appellant bank and Mr .Bashir Awan, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It was contended by Mr. Khalid Javed, the learned Advocate for the appellant bank that as the respondent was appointed only on Parties Account for a period and then his services were to be dispensed with, as soon as the parties account was settled, therefore, he is ousted from the ambit of the definition of a 'workman' covered under the provisions of the Labour laws, particularly, under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition under section 25-A, I. R. O. 1969. I see no force in this petition of Mr. Khalid Javed. There is a clear-cut admission on behalf of the appellant bank that though the respondent was a parties Account, but still the bank was competent to take any action against him as per its Rules as it enjoyed hire and fire powers, also in respect of the respondent and since, the respondent had committed a gross misconduct, he was rightly proceeded under the relevant Labour Laws. Further, the terms and conditions as well as contents of the appointment letter of the respondent clearly established that the respondent was never appointed on parties account and if he had been on that account, the name of such party should have definitely been mentioned on it, but, there is no such mention, therefore, the appointment letter itself indicates that in fact he was appointed like all other employees of the bank and that is why he was transferred, from one place to the other and was in the employment of the bank continuously from 1977 till the date of dismissal in 1983. In view of this legal and factual position, I would hold that the respondent was a permanent workman of the appellant bank and so he was fully covered with the rules & regulations of the bank as well as the relevant Labour Laws, particularly the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
6. As regards the merits of the case, it was submitted by Mr. Khalid Javed, the learned Advocate for the appellant bank that the respondent was issued a charge-sheet containing five charges and out of these charges four charges were full established in a lawfully and fairly held domestic enquiry, while the fifth charge was not established and so in view of the report of the enquiry officer, the respondent was rightly dismissed from service. I also do not find any substance in this submission of Mr. Khalid Javed. A careful perusal of the evidence on record by the appellant bank before the learned Labour Court, clearly proves that it is contradictory to each other, no documentary proof was produced before the learned Labour Court to substantiate any of the charges and were not based on any documentary evidence) and the enquiry officer was not fair to base his enquiry report holding him guilty of the gross misconduct. Thus, the learned Labour Court has rightly overruled all the charges against the respondent and set aside the dismissal order of the respondent. I would also agree with him on his findings in the impugned order.
7. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits forthwith.
A.E./918/Lb.S. 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.