QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The respondent No.1 was employed with the petitioner-Bank. He was charge-sheeted on 15-10-1979 for making embezzlement in connivance with other officers spread over a period of more than one year. An Inquiry was held and he was dismissed from service on 31- 3-1981. Against the order of his dismissal, the respondent filed an appeal. The said appeal was rejected on 15-1-1983. The respondent filed a second appeal on 29-3-1983 which was dismissed on 26-10-1983. On 2-11-1983 he served the employer with a grievance notice and thereafter filed grievance petition in the Labour Court. The Labour Court accepted the petition on 13-1-1985 and ordered his reinstatement with back benefits. This order was challenged before the High Court. The main ground urged by the petitioner was that the award could only be enforced by the National Industrial Relations Commission, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. This plea was accepted by the High Court. The matter came up to this Court. This Court allowed the appeal and it was held that Award of Wage Commission could be enforced through an application before the Labour Court.
2. The learned counsel has referred to the order of the Labour Court. It was observed by the Labour Court that:-- "If the petitioner had come to know about the embezzlement by his colleagues as admitted in Ex.R- 7, it was his duty to report the matter to the higher authorities instead of sleeping over it merely because the delinquents had assured to make up the shortfall. The petitioner was therefore, guilty of criminal negligence and was not only rightly held to be so by the enquiry officer but is admitted by him in Ex.R-7. However, I cannot resist remarking that the punishment of dismissal is too harsh to be maintained on the charge of mere negligence. The respondent should have awarded some lesser punishment but it is not open to the Court to substitute the punishment of dismissal by a lesser punishment."
3. The learned counsel has submitted that once the Labour Court has observed that the respondent was guilty of criminal negligence then it had no authority to set aside the punishment which was awarded to him by the departmental authority, and the High Court has not considered this aspect of the case. The learned counsel has referred to Pakistan Tobacco Co. v. Channan Khan (1980 PLC 981).
4. The point for determination is whether the Labour Court was justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the employer.
Leave is granted.
The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents if they so desire.