' NAZIR AHMAD BHATTI, J.--Muhammad Hanif, petitioner herein, was employed as a stenographer in the United Bank Limited. At the time of his appointment in the year 1985, he was a graduate. In April, 1986, he was served with a letter to explain that the marks in the Matriculation certificate, copy produced by him at the time of appointment, appeared to have been tampered with and increased. However, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 31-7-1986. After adopting the procedure of grievance notice etc. As given in section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the petitioner herein filed a petition in the Labour Court, Peshawar challenging the termination of his services. The said petition was accepted by the learned Labour Court on 16-6-1987. The United Bank filed an appeal before the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, which was accepted on 22-8-1987. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal filed the writ petition in hand in this Court challenging the aforesaid order of the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal as being illegal and without lawful authority.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the qualifications prescribed for the post of stenographer by the Wage Commission for Banks and Financial Institutions, 1974-75, which was adopted by the United Bank, was Intermediate with shorthand and typing speed of 120/45 words per minute (paragraph 226 of the Report) and that neither any division nor any minimum marks of Matriculation or Intermediate were prescribed as a condition of service. He also contended that there was no interpolation in the original Matriculation Certificate and that some tampering appeared to be on the photo copy of the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the interpolation, if any, did not take place after the petitioner had joined the service. As such the learned counsel contended that the termination of his service was not only un-called for but the judgment of the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal was also made without lawful authority, as no misconduct was committed by the petitioner.
3. We have very anxiously considered the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is a fact that the aforesaid report of the Wage Commission does not specify for service as stenographer any division or any minimum marks either in the Matriculation examination or in the Intermediate examination. Actually the stress is only on the speed in shorthand and typing. The qualifications prescribed for the post of stenographer in paragraph 226 of the aforesaid Wage Commission Report are Intermediate with shorthand and typing speed of 120/45 words per minute.
As such the question of division or marks in both the examinations was immaterial. Even otherwise, there was no interpolation in the original Matriculation Certificate. It is also a fact that interpolation did not take place after the petitioner had joined the service. As such the petitioner was not guilty of any misconduct.
4. There were no legal grounds available for the termination of the services of the petitioner. The learned Labour Court arrived at a correct conclusion when it accepted the petition of the petitioner filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Obviously, the impugned order of the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal was made without lawful authority.
5. Consequently, we would accept this writ petition, set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal and will restore the judgment of the learned Labour Court in its entirety.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.