DECISION ' These are two cross-appeals filed against an impugned order, 6-4-1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No, 1 at Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of Naseer Bakhsh under section 25-A, 1969, directing his reinstatement in service with 50% back benefits. Appeal No, 148 of 1985 is filed by Messrs Bank of Oman against the order of reinstatement with 50% back benefits, while, Appeal No, 159 of 1985 is filed by Naseer Bakhsh against an order granting him 50% back benefits. As, in both these cross-appeals against a common impugned order, the facts and circumstances are same and similar, therefore, I would dispose of these cross-appeals by this single decision.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Naseer Bakhsh claimed to have been appointed in the Bank of Oman Ltd., as an Officer Grade III, but, was performing the duties of clerical and manual in nature and was not holding any power of attorney or was not authorised to do any act on behalf of the management. He claimed to have unblemished service record, therefore, he used to get annual increment as and when was due. Further, his claim was that on 8-8-1982 he was served with a memorandum issued by the Chief Manager on an alleged complaint by the Assistant Manager purported to be a show-cause notice/charge-sheet to which he had submitted a satisfactory reply on 15-8-1982, but, was informed by the Bank that a domestic enquiry was to conduct against him with effect from 18-8-1982, on which he was so mentally disturbed that he had to be admitted in a hospital and on being discharged from the hospital, when he reported to the Bank on 1-9-1982 and requested for the grant of one month's leave praying therein that he be also reimbursed the amount of Rs,1,985 having been spent on his treatment. He claimed that on 26-9-1982 without assigning any reasons, his services were terminated and having been aggrieved with this action of the bank, he had served his grievance notice upon the bank followed by his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969 before the learned Labour Court.
3. The management of the Bank resisted the petition on the grounds that Naseer Bakhsh was employed as an Officer on 14-12-1980 at a monthly salary of Rs,3,450 as a Credit/Financial Analyst/Advisor and was to perform the duties, various averments of the petition and as regards to the averments made in paras. 4 to 14 of the petition, it was submitted that on 3-8-1982 he had misbehaved with one Mr. Abdul Mearij Hashmi, Assistant Chief Manager, therefore, he was served with the show-cause notice. Further, it was the case of the Bank that as the reply to the show- cause notice was not found satisfactory, therefore, a domestic enquiry was ordered against him in which he was avoiding to participate on a false pretext of illness, so, it was decided to terminate his services simplicity, vide letter, dated 26-9-1982 and that Naseer Bakhsh was not a workman, hence, he was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969 before the learned Labour Court which was also 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 passed the impugned order, hence, the present two cross-appeals.
5. 1 have heard Mr. S. Qamaruddiq Hassan, the learned Advocate for the Bank of Oman Ltd., and Mr. Naseer Bakhsh, in person, and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case.
At the very outset, I would observe here that the impugned order is detailed, thoroughly discussed and well-reasoned. However, Mr. S. Qamaruddin Hassan, the learned Advocate for the Bank has contended that the impugned order is of no legal effect and thus, without jurisdiction for the reason that Naseer Bakhsh being a Grade III Officer was not a workman as defined in Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and hence, he was not competent to maintain his grievance petition. Mr. S. Qamaruddin Hassan, the learned Advocate further pleaded that the learned Labour Court has not appreciated the evidence brought on record as to the nature of duties being performed by Mr. Naseer Bakhsh, and that it has also erred in overlooking the fact that no employee including the Chief Manager of the Bank in Pakistan had the final authority to sanction any loan or vary its duration or terms and that such authority was to exercise only submitted that research, investigation and advisory work pertaining to the existing and prospective clients of the Bank was, by its very nature an essential management function and any absence or presence of supervision as referred to by the Hon'ble Court would not, did not and could not change the basic and essential character of the work, which was not clerical, whether skilled or unskilled. I see no force in any of the contentions of Mr. S. Qamaruddin Hassan, the learned Advocate for the Bank. The Authorities referred to by him in the cases reported in 1984 PLC 352, 1984 PLC 1353, 1982 SCMR 407 and PLJ 1975 Kar. 59, are also not relevant to the facts, circumstances and legal aspects of present case.
Merely to show designation of an employee of the Bank as a 'Manager' does. Not bar him from invoking the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court. It is the consistent view of this Tribunal as well as the superior Courts that an employee, performing the duties of manual and clerical in nature fully supported by the evidence on record, irrespective of his mere designation as Grade III Officer or a Manager, is a workman under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and fully entitled to maintain his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969 before the learned Labour Court. In present case, after careful perusal of the evidence and thorough exmination of all documents brought on record by the parties, it is established, without any doubt, that Mr. Naseer Bakhsh is a workman within the ambit of the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 performing the duties of clerical and manual in nature. There is a serious contradiction in the reply statement filed by the Bank and the evidence of the Chief Manager, before the learned Labour Court and the memo. Of appeal submitted before this Tribunal as regards to the point of nature of duties, being performed by the workman, namely, Naseer Bakhsh was not given any letter of authority for working independently or to sanction credit facility and that as there was no clerk in the Credit Department, therefore, the drafts proposals used to be finalised by the Chief Manager for final typing and onward submission to the Head Office at Dubai. Further, it is an admitted position that neither a clerk nor even a peon etc., was working in the Credit Department under the workman, Naseer Bakhsh and that there was no separate designation for a financial Analyst/Advisor in the Bank, which job was being done by the workman. Further there is a specific admission rather confession on behalf of the witness of the Bank that despite the fact that Naseer was issued a, charge-sheet for an alleged charge of misconduct and to enquire into the same, a domestic enquiry was also ordered but it was not held and the services of Naseer Bakhsh were terminated simpliciter' even, without assigning any reason. Lastly, it was also confessed by the witness of the bank that Naseer Bakhsh did not sanction leave of any employee of the Bank. A bare perusal of the impugnd order, vide para. 44 of it would also show that it was conceded by the Bank itself that if that Court takes a view that Naseer Bakhsh was a workman, then, admittedly his termination from service `simpliciter' could not be justified. The authorities relied upon by the workman, Naseer Bakhsh, in support of his case are fully applicable and I would also hold him a 'workman' and entitled to maintain his grievance under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969 before a jurisdiction in this case. In view of the confession by the Bank I would also hold the termination of services of the workman Naseer Bakhsli as illegal, mala fide and not sustainable, therefore, it is set aside.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. I would accordingly dismiss the Appeal No, KAR-148 of 1985 filed by the appellant Bank. As regards, Appeal No, KAR-148 of 1985 filed by the workman, Naseer Bakhsh for the grant of full back benefits, I, in view of the above discussed evidence and the circumstances of the case, would allow this appeal and direct that he be reinstated in service with full back benefits,.
Forthwith. The amount of back benefits, already deposited by the Bank before this Tribunal be paid to him immediately after due verification. As regards the payment of the rest of the back benefits to the workman, Naseer Bakhsh, he has a right to adopt a proper course for their recovery.