' The respondent No,3 was serving as Cashier with the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the said respondent was detected charging bogus T.A. Bills, therefore, he was charge-sheeted on 17-6-1981. The respondent No,3 submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 26-6-1981. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Inquiry Officer. The report of the Inquiry Officer is dated 30-11-1981. It was followed by second show-cause. Notice and ultimately the services of the respondent No, 3 were terminated vide order dated 18-11-1982. The respondent challenged this order through petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. The petitioner contested this grievance petition. However, respondent No,2 after proper adjudication and hearing the arguments accepted this petition vide order dated 25-6-1984, set aside the termination order and reinstated the respondent-employee without back benefits. The petitioner impugned this order through an appeal before the respondent No, 1, who proceeded to dismiss the same vide judgment dated 18-3-1985.
2. The petitioner now through the present Constitutional petition has assailed both the orders of the respondents Nos.1 and 2. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondent No,1 has entered appearance and contested the petition while the other respondents were proceeded ex parte.
3.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has argued that the Zonal Chief was the competent authority under Rule 8 of Efficiency and Discipline Rules read with B Schedule of Powers. It is maintained that since the order dated 18-11-1982 was passed by the Zonal Chief, therefore, there was nothing wrong with the same and the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 wrongly and illegally held that the order was not passed by the competent authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a dismissed bank employee cannot maintain a grievance petition in view of the definition of workman as contained in. Section 2(xxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969). The learned counsel in this behalf has placed reliance on the case of Vice-President, National Bank of Pakistan, Gujranwala Zone and another v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 7 others 1985 PLC 1053. He added that this judgment of this Court was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Iftikhar Ahmad and others v.. President, National Bank of Pakistan and others PLD 1988 SC 532 However, he maintained that findings on the point urged by him as to maintainability of grievance petition by a dismissed employee were not set aside.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel . For the respondent No,3employee has argued that the order of termination was not passed by the Zonal Chief as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The order in fact was passed by the Executive Vice-President, who neither heard the petitioner nor was posted with the complete facts of the case. The learned counsel for the employee has argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider four questions noted in para. 6 of the judgment. It is argued that the judgment of this. Court in the case of Vice-President was based on these questions and was set aside in toto.
5. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the Bank and counter-arguments of the learned counsel for the employee and gone through the record as well as precedent cases. Now I take up the legality of the impugned termination order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Zonal Chief is a competent authority to order the termination of the officials of the cadre of the respondent No,3. In this behalf, he has placed reliance on Rule 8 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules (Banks and Financial Institutions), 1975 and schedule of powers appended with these rules. The same read as under:-- A. "8. Powers of awarding punishment and of suspension shall vest in the authorities designated for the purpose by the banks concerned. B. SCHEDULE OF POWERS: ' Following schedule of powers for awarding punishment and for suspending employee as required under Rule 8 above is laid down:-- {{TABLE}} Category of employee Authority competent Appellate to appoint Enquiry Authority.
Officers and impose penalties. Non-Clerical staff posted in Area/Zonal Chief Circle Executive concerned. -do- Divisional Head concerned. a Branch. Concerned. Non-Clerical staff posted -do- in Zonal Offices.
Nor?-Clerical staff posted His Departmental in Head Office. Incharge.
Category of employee Authority competent Appellate to appoint Enquiry Authority.
Officers and izhpose penalties.
Clerical Staff posted Area/Zonal Chief Circle Executive in a Branch. Concerned. Concerned. Clerical staff posted -do- -do- in Zonal Offices.
Clerical staff posted His Departmental Division0 Head in Head Office. Incharge. Concerned. {{TABLE}} ' The disciplinary cases against Clerical and Non-Clerical staff working in Branches and Zonal/Area Offices would be dealt by the branches and Zonal/Area Offices in accordance with the procedure, details of which is enclosed."
When Rule 8 is read with schedule of powers it becomes abundantly clear that Area/Zonal Chief was the competence authority in case of the respondent No,3. But in the present matter the order was not passed by the Zonal Chief independently as is clear from the text of the letter Annexure 'K', which reads as under:-- "We refer to your Letter No, AGS/0445, dated 29th May, 1982 on the above subject and to advise you that the charges established against Mr. Mohib Ali Shah constitute serious misconduct, you may terminate his services from the bank.
' Letter of termination of services of Mr. Mohib Ali Shah may please be issued by Zonal Office, and a copy of it may be endorsed to us for record and further action in connection with settlement of his account." '
It is clear from the para. 1 of the letter that the Zonal Chief has acted on the advice of Executive Vice-President, who has admittedly no authority to terminate the services of the respondent No,3.
The order cannot be deemed to have been passed by the Zonal Chief, who has simply given effect to the advice of his Executive Vice-President, therefore, the order cannot be treated to have been passed by the Zonal Chief. It is order of 'management' as clear from the order itself.
6. Now coming to the competency of the petition. It is clear from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that judgment of this Court was set aside on all the four questions noted in para. 6 of that judgment. The competency of the petition has been specifically dealt and relevant para. Of the judgment reads as under:-- ".. However, that may be, there seems to be no justification of holding that an employee whose terms are governed by an award made by the Wage Commission cannot seek redress for his grievance before a Labour Court."
7. The order of termination has already been held illegal having been not passed by the competent authority. Now if this Constitutional petition is allowed C it will amount to perpetuate an illegal order, therefore, the issuance of writ is refused on this score too.
8. The result is that there is no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed with costs.