1. ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--Munshi Khan, respondent No,2, was serving as Officer Grade-III in the main branch at Mirpur (Azad Kashmir) of the Petitioner Bank. He was served with a charge-sheet in respect of certain irregularities detected in the accounts of the branch. A regular inquiry was conducted. The inquiry officer found:- "The foregoing lines make it explicitly clear that bank's income has not been misappropriated as alleged by the Senior Auditor nor do the irregularities covered by Inspection Wing, Islamabad letter No,IW: ISL: PROC/475, dated 16-2-82 fall within the purview of fraud/forgeries in the strictest sense of the word and for reasons elaborated in each case. In fact, the whole case has been made out in a haphazard, reckless and slipshod manner."
2. ' Despite the report of the inquiry officer, respondent No,2 was removed from service. After availing of the departmental remedies, he approached the Punjab Labour Court No,7, Gujranwala to challenge the order of his removal. After recording evidence of both parties the Labour Court found that the domestic inquiry had not been held in consonance with law and rules and that no charge had been established against him. Accordingly, it accepted the petition and directed his re- instatement in service with full back benefits. The petitioner bank challenged the order of the Labour Court both in writ jurisdiction in the High Court and in appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. A learned Single Judge in the High Court dismissed the writ petition after examining the various pleas raised on its behalf. The learned Tribunal also dismissed its appeal on the basis of the judgment delivered by the High Court. The petitioner bank seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
2. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No,318 of 1988 and urged that the judgment of the High Court is in conflict with the view taken by this Court in the said appeal. We have gone through the judgment delivered in the aforementioned appeal and find that it has no bearing whatsoever on the facts of this case.
3. There the question for consideration was whether the disciplinary rules framed in respect of the employees of the bank over-rode the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance. This question does not arise in the petition before us.
4. Leave is refused.