This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 3-10-1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service as a Godown Inspector without back benefits.
2. The allegations for which the respondent was dismissed from service were that while making inspection, he failed to notice the shortage in the stocks pledged to the Bank caused after joint inspection dated 5-3-1984 due to release of stocks by the Branch Manager on simple chits some of which are dated 8-3-1984, 18-4-1984, 22-4-1984 and 24-4-1984 without receiving cash and that he failed to notice absence of godown charts and did not mention the irregularity in his inspection reports and failed to initial the Godown Charts and thus acted in violation of para. 72 of Chapter XI of BBI as inspecting official.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that it has been wrongly held by the learned lower Court that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies. The ground on which the learned lower Court has held so is that staff service rules of the National Bank of Pakistan are not statutory Rules. It has been argued that the Rules were framed under Banks (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 therefore, they are statutory rules. The argument has no force. Section 20 authorises the Federal Government to make rules by Notifications but the Federal Government can make rules which are necessary or expedient for giving effect to the provision of the Act. It does not say that Services or Efficiency and Discipline Rules are to be framed under section 20. The rules framed by the appellants have not been brought on the record, therefore, it cannot be said whether they are in reality statutory or not. However, if they are not statutory rules, Wage Commission Award would apply and where the said Award applies, Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable. Two conditions are given in the first proviso to section 1(4)(c) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 for the non-application of the said Ordinance. The first condition is that the establishment should have been run by or under the Authority of the Government. Since National Bank of Pakistan has been nationalised, it is apparent that it is being run under the Authority of the Government. The second condition is that the establishment should have statutory rules of service. The Wage Commission Award was given under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and it was notified in the Ministry of Finance Notification No, SRO-1384 (1)/74 in November, 1974. Thus both the conditions stand satisfied and thus the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable.
4. Admittedly the enquiry was not properly held. Evidence of no prosecution witness was recorded nor any statement of the respondent was-recorded. The only thing done was that the respondent was brought under cross-examination by the Enquiry Officer and by the prosecutor. Learned counsel for the appellants has sought permission to hold fresh enquiry. Since the charge was not of embezzlement or misappropriation of money therefore, it does not appear necessary to give permission for fresh enquiry. As is apparent from the charge-sheet the allegation was that the respondent failed to notice the shortage in the stocks pledged with the bank. It is apparent that according to the allegation the shortage could not come to the notice of the respondent. The other allegation was that he did not mention in his report the irregularity of absence of Godown Charts.
Although the allegation amounted to misconduct but since the allegation was not that the respondent had misappropriated any stocks or had hand in the matter, therefore, I do not think that this is a fit case for giving permission for fresh enquiry. The learned lower Court has thus rightly directed the reinstatement of the respondent.
5. As a result there is no force in the appeal which is dismissed.