DECISION This is an appeal against the impugned order, dated 14-9-1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, who allowed the grievance petition of the respondent filed under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was a Senior Head Cashier and lastly posted at appellants Juli Branch and used to perform manual and clerical duties which included making entries in the Day Books, Cash Books; - Balancing of Ledgers, General correspondence, documentation of loss transactions, bringing cash from link Bank Branch, encashment of cheques from sub-treasury, deposit of cash with linked bank branch, counting of cash, posting of cheques, handling of cases of advances etc. The respondent, therefore, claimed to be covered by the provisions of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and other Labour Laws. The respondent used to perform his duties with utmost honesty, integrity and efficiency with the result that due to his vigilance the attempt of two persons of the Bank to encash about Rs.2 lacs through forged documents was foiled. In September, 1980, while the respondent was posted as Senior Head Cashier, one Mr. Qamaruddin was the Bank Manager and he was involved in all sorts of corrupt activities and a man of highly objectionable character. The said Manager removed one bag of golden ornaments of a borrower but the present respondent was charge-sheeted on 7-5-1981. On 15-3-1983, after an enquiry the respondent was dismissed from service and after adopting the legal procedure, the respondent submitted a grievance petition before the Labour Court who allowed his petition and directed his re-instatement with full back benefits.
3. The case of the appellant-Bank is that the respondent is governed by Statutory Rules of Service framed in 1979 and 1980, and so Standing Orders Ordinance is not applicable to him. On merits, it is the case of the appellant bank that the respondent had removed the golden bag and caused serious damage to the reputation of the bank as he has made good the loss by depositing the amount of gold and thus he has admitted his guilt and that as per enquiry proceedings, the charge has been established and so, he has rightly been punished.
4. I have heard Mr. Partab Rai, the learned Advocate for the appellant Bank and Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned counsel for the respondent. It is contended on behalf of the appellant Bank that the bank's employees are governed by its statutory rules of service framed in the year 1973 and so the Standing Orders Ordinance is riot applicable. The objection of Mr. Partab Rai to the maintainability of the present appeal was that as the grievance petition of the appellant involved the enforcement of the award of the were commission for banks and financial institutions, the matter lay solely within the jurisdiction of the N .I. R. C. , as provided in subsection (3) of section 22-B, I.R.O, and the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts was ousted by reason of the provision contained in subsection (11) of section 22-A, I.R.O. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in the case of Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal 1982 PLC 1. That was a case where the Collective Bargaining Agent sought to challenge a circular issued by the Pakistan Banking Council requiring the holding of certain tests and interviews for purposes of promotion of clerical staff to officers' grades and typists and steno-typists to the grade of steno--typists and stenographers respectively on the ground that these instructions were inconsistent with the provisions of paragraph 237 of the report of the Wage Commission which provided that promotions should be made on the basis of experience, length of service and overall performance of an employee. It was held in that case that the workers could seek their redress from the N . I . R . C . , as it was a case of individual grievance, but the Labour Courts had no jurisdiction to enforce a right claimed under the Award of the Wage Commission for banks, which was deemed to be an Award of the N.I.R.C., as provided in section 38- -D, I.R.O. This, however, is not a case for enforcement of any right conferred by the Award of tire Wage Commission. The issue here is whether the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1980, under which the services of the appellant were terminated, can be considered to be the statutory rules for the purposes of the proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, so as to exclude the application of the Standing Orders to the appellant and other employees of the respondent-Bank. This objection, therefore, of Mr. Partab Rai also fails. The effect of the report of the First Wage Commission for Banks and Financial Institutions and the Efficiency and Discipline Rules framed by it was considered in detail by this Tribunal in the subsequent case of National A Bank of Pakistan v.
Nizamuddin Mehar 1980 PLC 1118. It was pointed out in this case that the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1973, stood superseded by the Discipline Rules framed by the Wage Commission for the Banks and Financial institutions and since these rules could only be deemed to be an Award of the National Industrial Relations Commission and not statutory rules, the second requirement, i.e. The application of statutory rules for exempting the employees of the nationalized banks from the operation of the Standing Orders was wanting.
5. As regards the merits of the case, it is contended on behalf of the appellant-Bank that the respondent is not a workman and that as per enquiry proceedings the charge has been established respondent has been rightly dismissed. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the respondent that the appellant, in its own reply statement has admitted that the respondent used to write Day Book of Demand Loan, Cash Book and Balancing of D/L Ledgers. The assertion of the respondent in respect of his duties in his grievance petition as well as in his affidavit in evidence was not assailed by the appellant-Bank or any evidence whatsoever was led in rebuttal. Mr. Bashir Awan for the respondent has placed reliance on a case reported in 1983 PLC 468, wherein it is held that Head Cashier is a workman and so can maintain his petition before the Labour Court. In view of this I hold that the respondent is a workman and can maintain his petition before the Labour Court.
6. As regards the domestic enquiry, from the documents and evidence brought on record, I find that the enquiry was conducted after more than two years of the charge-sheet and this long delay was not explained by the appellant-Bank. Further, it is evidence that the dismissal of the respondent was ordered after three years of the alleged commission of the offence and even after two years of the service of the charge --sheet. Admittedly the Enquiry Officer did not record the evidence of any witness, but, he simply relied upon some prepared statements of the witnesses.
The Enquiry Officer did not consider the effect of the Auditors report, dated 10--3-1980, and even, he did not allow this report to be placed before him alongwith enquiry papers. According to the Audit report, the conduct and efficiency of the respondent had been commended. This act on the part of the Enquiry Officer clearly established that he was not at all impartial and so the enquiry held by him is against the law and is violative of the principle of natural justice, thus, not sustainable.
7. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.
The impugned order of the Labour Court is, therefore, maintained. The respondent is directed to be re-instated in service, but, with fifty per cent (50%) back benefits.