DECISION This is an appeal against the order of Sindh Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad, dated 26-4-1988.
2. I have heard Mr. Bashir Awan, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Gulzar Ahmad, the learned Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Admittedly the appellant was employed as Assistant with the respondent bank and was charge- sheeted for misconduct on 30-6-1986. After domestic enquiry, he was removed from service vide order, dated 19-4-1987. Being aggrieved by the order, after service of the grievance notice, he filed the grievance petition before the learned Labour Court which was dismissed.
4. The main point urged by Mr. Bashir Awan , the learned Advocate for the appellant is, that the proceedings were initiated against the appellant under National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1980 and order of dismissal was also passed under the said Rules. It is submitted that these Rules are not statutory Rules and proceedings initiated under these rules would be unlawful. He had relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of Sindh High Court, Karachi in Constitution Petition No, D-684/1982 in the case of National Bank of Pakistan v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal & others.
In the said judgment, their Lordships have held that the Staff Service Rules 1980 were not Statutory Rules and did not supersede the Statutory Rules viz., National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1973, which still held the field. Their Lordships, therefore, observed that "the action initiated against the respondent by the petitioner under Staff Service Rules 1980 from very inception, that is the issuance of charge-sheet and all subsequent proceedings were without lawful authority."
5. Mr. Gulzar Ahmad, the learned Advocate for the respondent bank submitted, that the proceedings were not held under the Staff Service Rules 1980, but, were held under the Statutory Rules of 1973, and that he had mentioned this fact in the Reply Statement. The order of dismissal Exh. A/8 belies this contention, which clearly shows, that the appellant was dismissed from service under Rule 37(h) of National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1980.
6. It is further submitted by Mr. Gulzar Ahmed that in the aforesaid case, decided by the Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, the petition was dismissed not because the proceedings were held to be without lawful authority, but, because there was a concurrent findings of the two Courts below on merits. I am unable to agree with this submission of Mr. Gulzar Ahmad. It cannot be that after holding entire proceedings to be without lawful authority, their Lordships would have upheld such an order even if there were no concurrent findings of fact by the two Courts below.
7. In the instant case also, the proceedings appear to have been initiated under Staff Service Rules, 1980 which is clear from the dismissal order Exh. A/8 as pointed above and, therefore, all the proceedings from very inception of the charge-sheet were without lawful authority and the order passed on such proceedings is not sustainable. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and order the reinstatement of the appellant with full back benefits. This order has to be complied with within one month.