' Khalid Mahmood respondent No, 2 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was employed as an Assistant (cashier) in Qilla Subdev Singh Branch of District Sheikhupura of the petitioner Bank, viz. Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited in the year 1980. He allegedly paid sum of Rs,1,000 to a customer in unauthorized manner on 14-12-1980, for which his explanation (Annex. A) was called, wherefore he submitted his reply on 16-12-1980 (Annex. B). He maintained that he obtained a sum of Rs,1,000 with the permission of the Manager who added the same amount in the cash of the branch on the same day. He repaid the sum of Rs,1,000 to the Manager on 26-12-1980. The respondent, however, was charge-sheeted by the Vice-President, Sheikhupura, on 23-12-1980 vide charge-sheet Annex.
C. This charge-sheet was received by the respondent on 15-1-1981. Subsequently domestic enquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer found him guilty of causing shortage in cash amounting to Rs,1,000. A further finding was recorded of misconduct against the respondent that he failed to submit his reply to the charge-sheet dated 21-12-1980. After service of show-cause notice and personal hearing of the respondent by the Circle Chief, he (the respondent) was dismissed from service, vide dismissal order dated 25-3-1981 (Annex. F).
2. The respondent served a grievance notice thereafter filed a grievance petition under section 25- A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) before the Punjab Labour Court No,3, Ferozewala, Lahore. The grievance application was of course, resisted by the petitioner and the learned Labour Court after hearing the parties and after recording their evidence, dismissed the grievance petition on 27-2-1983.
3. Being aggrieved the respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and the learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 22-10-1983, allowed the respondent's appeal, ordered his re-instatement but without back benefits.
4. The petitioner-bank assailed the aforementioned order dated 22-10-1983, passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal before this Court through the under consideration constitutional petition. It was inter alia urged that terms and conditions (3.: service of workmen employed in the Nationalized Banks and other financial institutions were governed by the award of the Wage Commission, which by virtue of the provisions of section 38-D of the Ordinance, could only be enforced by the National Industrial Relations Commission and, therefore, the learned Labour Court and the learned Tribunal lacked jurisdiction in the matter. It was further urged that after his dismissal the respondent ceased to be a workman within the meaning of section 2 (xxviii) of the Ordinance and hence had no locus standi to bring his grievance before the Labour Court under section 25A of the Ordinance.
5. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10-4-1985, was pleased to hold that since the terms and conditions of service of employees of nationalized banks and financial institutions were governed by the award of the Wage Commission, such employees could seek enforcement of their rights arising out of the said award before the National Industrial Relations Commission. Thus it was held that the Labour Courts and the learned Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction in the matter.
Many writ petitions filed by different nationalized banks challenging the re-instatement of their employees by the Labor Court were thus a lowed All such employees preferred appeals before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. The learned Supreme Court, however, concluded that the award of the Commission could also be enforced before a Labour Court under section 25-A of the Ordinance like any other award. It was further held that dismissed workmen of the banks have locus standi to take their grievance arising out of their non-employment before the concerned Labour Courts. In this view of the matter, judgments passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court were set aside and the cases including the under consideration one, were remanded to this Court for deciding other issues involved in such cases.
6. The other issue involved in the present case is that the point on the basis of which the impugned order has been made by the learned Appellate Tribunal in favour of the respondent was neither raised in the grievance notice nor in the grievance petition filed by him under section 25-A of the Ordinance. It was further urged that the petitioner-bank had no occasion to lead evidence to contradict the point raised by the respondent at the appellate stage.
' It is noteworthy that the dismissal of the respondent by the petitioner has been set aside through the impugned order by the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal on the grounds that enquiry against the respondent was initiated and the charge-sheet was served on him by the Assistant Vice- President who was not competent to do so and, therefore, subsequent proceedings culminating into the dismissal of the respondent were also illegal and wrongful. It was further held by the learned Tribunal that the respondent was not supplied with the copy of the enquiry report and thus he was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
7. As already stated, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the plea that the enquiry was initiated against the respondent and that the charge-sheet on him was served by an incompetent authority was not raised in the grievance petition nor even in the memo. Of appeal.
This objection, according to the petitioner, was raised for the first time during the course of arguments, before the learned Tribunal and thus the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to meet this objection. It has also been canvassed that objection regarding non-supply of enquiry report was also raised for the first time before the learned Appellate Tribunal. It has, however, been maintained that non-supply of copy of Enquiry Officer's report is not fatal to the enquiry proceedings resulting into the dismissal of a workman. The learned counsel for the petitioner has maintained that the dismissal of the respondent has been ordered by the Circle Chief who could competently do so and that charge-sheet could lawfully be served on the respondent by the Assistant Vice-President who happened to be the Zonal Chief at the relevant time.
' The contentions raised on behalf of both the parties have been fully analysed and thoroughly considered. As a matter of fact, there is little substance in the argument that the plea regarding non-competency of the authority who ordered enquiry against the respondent and charge- sheeted him has been raised for the first time during the arguments before the learned Tribunal.
The respondent while appearing as his own witness before the learned Labour Court as transpires from Annex. J, expressly stated that charge-sheet served on him was issued by the Assistant Vice- President who was not competent to do so. He further stated that he was promoted as Assistant on 4-2-1978 and in case of an Assistant the competent authority happened to be the Vice-President.
' Regarding the plea that Assistant Vice-President in his capacity as Zonal Chief could competently order enquiry against the respondent and issue charge-sheet to him, it has been noticed that there is nothing on the records to show that the Assistant Vice-President who ordered disciplinary action against the respondent and issued charge-sheet to him was, in fact, a Zonal Chief. As per serial No, 12 of Appendix I of the Schedule to the Staff Service Rules, 1981 of Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited, Heads of Circle Offices have been delegated full powers upto Category II for awarding dismissal and other punishments. Heads of Zones cannot award the punishment of dismissal.
Under rule 14 of the Appendix, Circle Executives can make appointment of an Inquiry Officer or enquiry committee and issue a charge-sheet while such powers can be exercised by Heads of Zones up to Category II. As already observed, it has not been proved that the Assistant Vice- President who initiated enquiry against the respondent and issued charge-sheet to him was, in fact, Head of the Zone or not. No exception in the circumstances can be taken to the finding recorded in this behalf by the learned Appellate Tribunal that the dismissal of the respondent from service was void, as the dismissal order was based on the disciplinary action which was initiated by an authority not competent to do so.
8. An objection regarding jurisdiction or competency of an authority to initiate disciplinary action is manifestly of legal nature and thus can be raised at any stage, although in the present case, this objection was raised even before the Labour Court by the respondent while appearing as his own witness.
9. As already stated, the enquiry officer also found that the respondent was liable for misconduct, because he failed to submit reply to the charge. This finding was of course, recorded without serving a charge-sheet on the respondent in this behalf. It has also been held by the learned Tribunal that the respondent was not supplied copy of the enquiry report. In Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Guftar Shah and another PLD 1981 SC 225, it was held that non-supply of report of Enquiry Officer is not a requirement of rules of natural justice. Ordinarily non-supply of report of enquiry officer may not be violative of rules of natural justice, but in the circumstances of the present case, the respondent had no notice that he would be held liable for misconduct on the ground that he failed to submit reply to the first charge-sheet, but ultimately such a finding was recorded against him and was made one of the basis for his dismissal. In the case of Islamabad Club v. Muhammad Aslam and others 1982 SCMR 126, it was observed: "We think that it is clear that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on matters, which were not included in the original charge must have influenced the mind of the Administrator in awarding the punishment of dismissal to the respondent. In the circumstances, it could not be said that the respondent had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against the charges, which have formed the basis of disciplinary action against him, as no copy of the inquiry report was furnished to him and he was, therefore, not in a position to rebut the findings recorded against hint on these matters. On this view of the matter, it could certainly be held, as the High Court has done, that the requirements of reasonable opportunity, as embodied in clause (4) of Standing Order No, 15, were not fulfilled in this case."
' In the light of the circumstances of the present case, the principles enunciated by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the afore-quoted case, are fully applicable. The learned Appellate Tribunal was, therefore, justified to conclude that non supply of Inquiry Officer's Report to the respondent was violate of the principle that a workman should be punished after affording reasonable opportunity to defend himself in that behalf.
10. In the light of the foregoing conclusions, it is held that the impugned judgment is unexceptionable and thus there is no merit in the present writ petition, which is, therefore, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.