' Abdul Khalid, respondent No, 3, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, was serving as Assistant in Mansoorabad Branch, Faisalabad, of the Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, the petitioner herein, in September, 1981. He was served with a charge-sheet on 12-9-1981. The allegation was that he applied for house-purchase advance of Rs,50,000 on 26-2-1981 and by exercising undue influence on the Branch Manager, he succeeded in obtaining the loan on that very day without obtaining the order of sanction by the competent authority. It was further alleged that the flat to purchase for which he obtained the loan had already been transferred in his name on 23-2-1981 and that the amount of loan was received by the sister of his wife from whom he allegedly had purchased the flat on 23-2-1981. He was also regarded as guilty of misconduct inasmuch as he failed to obey the order of the employer regarding immediate repayment of the amount of loan together with interest. The respondent replied to the charge-sheet denying the charges. His reply was considered to be unsatisfactory and consequently domestic enquiry followed. After obtaining the report of the Enquiry Officer, the respondent was dismissed from service on 2-2-1982. The respondent, thereafter, served grievance notice and then filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, before the learned Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad. The petitioner-bank resisted the grievance petition. The learned Labour Court after recording the parties' evidence and after hearing them, dismissed the grievance petition on 29-8-1982. The respondent then preferred an appeal before the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. His appeal succeeded on 22-121982 and he was ordered to be re-instated in service without back benefits. The petitioner-bank has thus filed the present Constitutional petition assailing the order dated 22-12-1982 of the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal.
2. Originally it was argued on behalf of the petitioner-bank before a learned Division Bench of this Court then seized of the matter that terms and conditions of service of the employees of the nationalized banks, including those pertaining to disciplinary action, were governed by the Award of the Wage Commission and that the said Award could only be enforced through the National Industrial Relations Commission. It was also urged that the Award of the Wage Commission did not fall within the ambit of expression "Award" as occurring in section 2 of the Ordinance. It was thus pleaded that the Labour Court as also the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction in the matter. These arguments found favour with a learned Division Bench of this Court and consequently the Writ petition was allowed on 10-4-1985. The main judgment of the Division Bench was recorded in Writ Petition No, 719 of 1982. The respondent challenged the order of the Division Bench before the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan. The august Supreme Court accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment of this Court. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the Award of the Wage Commission could lawfully be enforced under section 25-A of the Ordinance, like any other Award and that the Labour Court and the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal could competently decide the respondent's grievance under section 25-A. The case has, however, been remanded to this Court for deciding the other issues involved in the matter.
3. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner-bank on the authority of the Province of East Pakistan v. Muhammad Sajjad Ali Mazumdar 1%2 PLC 528 that misconduct means improper conduct and thus the finding of the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal to the effect that the act on the part of the respondent did not amount to misconduct, was erroneous one. Although the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal while referring to sub-para. (2) of Paragraph 258 of the Banks Wage Commission Award of 1985 has observed that misrepresentation or misstatement simplicity does not amount to misconduct but at the same time the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the respondent did purchase a flat for which he obtained the loan. He mortgaged that flat with the bank while obtaining the loan. The amount of loan was received by the vendor from whom the respondent had purchased the flat. The mere fact that only three days prior to the obtaining of loan the flat was transferred in the name of the respondent did not amount to any misconduct or misstatement on the part of the respondent. These findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal are supported by the material available on the record. It has not been denied that the flat which stood transferred in the name of the respondent only three days prior to the obtaining of loan has, in fact, been mortgaged in favor of the bank.
There has not been found any defect in the title of the respondent vis-a-vis the said flat. The petitioner-bank takes exception to the fact that the respondent was disbursed the loan on the very day on which he applied for such loan without obtaining the prior sanction of the loan by the S competent authority. It is evident from the record that the loan was disbursed to the respondent on the very day on which he applied for it under the orders of the Zonal Chief. The fault thus lies with the Zonal Chief and the respondent cannot be made the scape goat for an omission on the part of the Zonal Chief who had some rivalry with the Circle Chief who was to sanction the loan. The respondent was wrongfully directed to re-deposit the loan with interest at bank's rate. As stated above, the amount of loan was received by the lady from whom the respondent had purchased the flat. The respondent, obviously, had no money with him to re-deposit the loan to which he was entitled as per terms and conditions of his service. For the foregoing discussion, it is concluded that no misconduct was committed by the respondent.
4. It has also been urged that the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal has not discussed the evidence produced during the course of domestic enquiry or before the Labour Court. This contention is not factually correct. The learned Appellate Tribunal has taken into consideration the evidence available on the record before recording the finding to the effect that the respondent was not liable for misconduct. No other objection has been raised on behalf of the petitioner-bank.
5. For the foregoing conclusions, it is concluded that there is no merit in the present writ petition which is, therefore, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.