DECISION This is an appeal filed by National Bank of Pakistan against the impugned order, dated 25-11-1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, under section 25-A, I . R.O., 1969.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent, Asad Ali son of Moinullah was a permanent worker/driver of the appellant-Bank and he was involved in some corruption case alongwith one Rehman's Baig, the then Manager of National Bank, Mahmoodabad Branch, Karachi and both of them were challenged, tried and convicted by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Karachi, vide his judgment, dated 19-8-1978. The respondent, Asad Ali preferred appeal which was still pending before the High Court when he was served with charge-sheet dated 31-1-1981 by the appellant-Bank alleging therein that he, by opening a fictitious account at Mahmoodabad Branch, obtained wrongful gain for himself and caused wrongful loss to the Bank. Besides this, the respondent was also reminded of his previous misconduct and punishment. The respondent submitted his reply to this charge-sheet on 17-12-1981 contending therein that the main allegation was till subjudice before the High Court and it would amount to double jeopardy if any action was taken by the appellant-Bank. But, after lapse of about one year i.e. On 13-11-1982, while the said criminal appeal was still pending before the High Court, the respondent was served with another charge-sheet in which almost the same allegations, as specified in the first charge-sheet; dated 31-1-1981, were repeated. To this charge-sheet also, the respondent submitted somewhat similar reply which was found unsatisfactory by the appellant-Bank, therefore, a domestic enquiry was held result in the dismissal of the respondent, vide order, dated 24-5-1983. Thereafter the respondent preferred a departmental appeal which remained unreplied till 5-3-1984. Being dissatisfied with the attitude of the appellant-Bank, the respondent served a grievance notice on the appellant-Bank in which he also inform the appellant-Bank that he had been acquitted by the High Court in criminal case and his conviction was set aside by the High Court, vide judgment, dated 4-12-1983 in Criminal Appeal No.197 of 1978, fully appreciating the facts of the case and giving the benefit of doubt to the respondent. As, the appellant-Bank did not reply even to this grievance notice, therefore, the respondent submitted his grievance petition under section 25-A I.R.O., 1969 before the learned Labour Court, who ordered for his re-instatement in service with full back benefits. Further, the case of the respondent was that he was an active worker of a trade union holding the post of Vice-President therein; therefore at the behest of the rival union, he was victimized by the appellant-Bank.
3. The appellant-Bank in their reply statement before the learned Labour Court had denied the allegations of malice or any motivation and had contended that the respondent had committed obvious fraud and forgery with their Mahmoodabad Branch in connivance with the Branch Manager, namely, M.A. Rehman's Baig and both these persons were tried and convicted by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption. The appellant-Bank's case was that they had replied about rejection of the appeal, vide letter, dated 28/30-8-1983 and also to his Advocate on 23-10-1983, therefore, the service of another grievance notice, dated 5-3-1984 by the respondent upon the appellant-Bank was uncalled for and needed no reply. The case of the appellant-Bank was that the respondent was given full opportunity to defend him in the domestic enquiry as there was no bar in conducting the enquiry during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court. Lastly the case of the appellant-Bank was that the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 was also not maintainable, being barred by time, hence, liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits in evidence and they were duly cross-examined.
The learned Labour Court had framed five Issues in the case and they allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, hence this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Samiullah Khan, the learned representative of the appellant-Bank and Mr. S.P.
Lodhi, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent and have carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It was argued by Mr. Samiullah Khan that the learned Labour Court did not appreciate correctly the legal position taken by the appellant-Bank and the facts brought on record and it did not take into account the latest decision given by the superior Court to the effect that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any case brought before it under section 25-A, I.R.O. By a Bank employee covered by the Wage Commission Awards and thus it acted beyond its jurisdiction and as such the impugned order passed on 25-11-1985 was without any force of Law. Mr. Samiullah Khan has further contended that the Labour Court should not have taken into account the judgment of the High Court, dated 4-12-1983 since the same had contained the conclusion merely on technical ground. He contended that it is a well-established principle that no case should be merely thrown out on a technical ground as all the rules of procedure are subservient to the end of justice unless a technical knock-out is caused by a mandatory provision of Law, therefore, the reference made by the Labour Court of the judgment, dated 4-12-1983 given by the High Court should not have come into play in the grievance petition of the respondent.
Lastly, it was pleaded by Mr. Samiullah Khan that the point of domestic enquiry be re-opened. I see no force in the arguments of Mr. Samiullah Khan.
6. On the other hand, Mr. S.P. Lodhi for the respondent has contended that the National Bank Staff Rules framed by the Bank have no statutory force and the same cannot be treated at par with the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance. In this behalf he referred to me a case reported in 1984 PLC 276, wherein it was held that since no statutory rules in terms of section 1 (4) of the Ordinance were existing in relation to the Bank employees. Such employees were entitled to invoke section 25- A, I.R.O., 1969, in order of enforce their rights conferred by the said Ordinance. In another case, reported in 1980 PLC 1118, it was held that National Bank run under the authority of the Federal Government, such Disciplinary Rules framed by Wages Commission for Banks and Financial Institutions cannot be treated as statutory rules and that such establishment like, National Bank of Pakistan, would not be out of ambit of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. I, therefore, hold as such. Mr. S.P. Lodhi further argued that the normal period of limitation as prescribed by section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 stands altered where the departmental appeals are provided and in such case the limitation commence from the date of decision on appeal. In this behalf, Mr. Lodhi has relied upon a number of authorities, reported in 1980 PLC 106, 1978 NLR 286, 1981 PLC 184, 1984 PLC 632, 1973 PLC 355 and the latest authority reported in 1985 PLC 700. In view of the facts and circumstance of the present case and the above-cited authorities, I hold the grievance petition of the respondent was within time. It was further pleaded by Mr. S.P. Lodhi that the respondent was first charge-sheeted on 31-1-1981 and till 7-11-1982 no action was taken against the respondent, but another charge-sheet, dated 7-11-1982 was issued to the respondent, which action of the appellant-Bank was not lawful. In this context, Mr. S.P. Lodhi has relied upon a series of case-laws, as reported in 1980 PLC 1007, 1980 PLC 136, 1978 NLR (Labour) 433, 1977 PLC 708 and 1978 PLC 480. In all these authorities it was held that fresh charge-sheet could not be served on the workman beyond one month's time of the alleged misconduct. I would, therefore, agree with the contention of Mr. S.P. Lodhi in this behalf. Lastly, it was contended by Mr. S.P Lodhi for the respondent that the domestic enquiry was not proper and in accordance with the prescribed procedure and Law, as admittedly a questionnaire was supplied to the respondent in which various intricate and composite questions were put to him which were duly replied by the respondent without admitting anything and without implicating himself. In this connection, Mr. Lodhi has referred to me to the D confession of the enquiry officer in the cross- examination before the Labour Court that he did not examine any other witness to prove such charges against the respondent and that he did not conduct the enquiry according to the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, and further, that he did not propose any punishment to be awarded to the respondent. I In support of his arguments, Mr. S.P. Lodhi has placed reliance on al number of authorities, reported in 1980 PLC 1219, 1984 PLC 1166 and 1973 PLC 24. Thus, I hold the enquiry proceedings being irregular and its results being without any valid foundations, the same could not be sustained.
7. For the reasons stated by me above, I would maintain the impugned order and dismiss the present appeal. The respondent is directed to be re-instated in service forthwith with the only modification that the respondent be paid thirty per cent (30%) back benefits. Further, direct that he total thirty per cent (30%) back benefits be paid to the respondent from the amount, already deposited by the appellant-Bank in this Tribunal.