DECISION ' These 2 appeals are directed against the order, dated 10-8-1989, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,VII at Sukkur whereby the grievance application of the workman, Abdul Jabbar Memon (hereinafter called the respondent) was partially allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with 25% back benefits. The employer Messrs National Bank of Pakistan (hereinafter called the appellants) has filed Appeal No,SUK-356 of 1989 against the order of reinstatement of the respondent whereas the respondent has filed Appeal No,SUK-346 of 1989 against the denial of 75% of the back benefits. I propose to dispose of both the appeals by this single decision.
2. The brief facts of the case appear to be that the respondent was working as an Assistant with the appellant Bank's Branch at Nasirabad where he was charge-sheeted for certain acts of misconduct on 12-1-1987 and after domestic enquiry, he was removed from service, vide order, dated 25-5-1987. After serving the grievance notice upon the appellants, the respondent has filed his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.
3. I have heard Mr. Noor Muhammad, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. S.Tauqir Hassan, the learned Advocate for the respondent and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
4. In the charge-sheet, dated 12-1-1987, the respondent was charged with commission of certain acts of misconduct in violation of the Banks Staff Service Rules. The Enquiry Officer Ali Nawaz Sial had issued notice to the respondent on 22-2-1987 informing him that he was detailed to conduct an enquiry under Rule 39(2) of National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1980 for the charges levelled against the respondent in the charge-sheet, dated 12-1-1987. On the report of this Enquiry Officer, the respondent was removed from service by order, dated 25-5-1987 which is Annexure 'E' to the grievance petition. Keeping in view the wordings of the charge-sheet and notice of enquiry, there can be no doubt that the charge-sheet was issued against the respondent under National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1980; framed on the recommendations of the Wage Commission Award, 1975, and the enquiry was also conducted under the said Rules resulting in the order of dismissal of the respondent.
5. This Tribunal has time and again held that the Staff Service Rules, 1980 are not Statutory Rules.
Reference may be made to the case of National Bank of Pakistan v. Lutfullah Abro reported in 1990 PLC 142. This view was confirmed by the learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court at Karachi in the case of National Bank of Pakistan v. S.LA.T. Reported 16. 1990 PLC 197. Their Lordships have even gone further and observed that action taken against the respondent by the petitioner, from the very inception, that is, the issuance of charge-sheet under Staff Service Rules, 1980 and all subsequent proceedings were without lawful authority. Mr. Noor Muhammad, the learned Advocate for the appellants has relied upon the case of A.Ghani Saeed v. National Bank of Pakistan reported in 1989 PLC (C.S.) 249. In this case the petitioner was charge-sheeted under 1973 Rules but the proceedings took place under 1980 Rules. The learned Division Bench of Karachi High Court came to the conclusion that as no objection had been taken by the petitioner either against the appointment of enquiry officer or the proceedings taken by him and the commission, defect or irregularity in the conduct of the enquiry has not caused material prejudice to the accused officer in his defence it would not itself vitiate the action taken against him. Their Lordships have held that no one has a vested right in procedure". It would be obvious that the facts of the two cases are distinguishable. It may also be pointed that the aforementioned case of A. Ghani Saeed was decided on 21-9-1988; whereas the case of National Bank of Pakistan v. S.L.A.T. Was decided on 26- 1-1989. Furthermore, A. Ghani Saeed was not a workman; whereas the respondent is admittedly a workman as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. A workman under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 has got vested right to enforce through Labour Court any rights guaranteed to him under any Law, Award or Settlement. It has been held in 1990 PLC 197, that the Bank employee was governed by the N.B.P. Staff Service Rules which were Statutory Rules and as such they have force of Law and if violated by the Bank, the employee could take the matter before the Labour Court and the grievance petition would be competent. Thus, the respondent had a secured right to be proceeded against under the Staff Service Rule 1973 and the failure of the Bank to initiate proceedings against him under the said Rules would be violative of his secured rights. As such, the order of dismissal has been rightly set aside by the learned Labour Court. The Appeal No,SUK-356 of 1989 filed by the appellant bank is, therefore, dismissed.
6. As the respondent has not been reinstated on merits, but, on only technical grounds, I do not think it proper to interfere with the decision of the learned Labour Court with regard to the amount of the back benefits granted to the respondent. Hence, his Appeal No,SUK-346 of 1989 is also dismissed.