DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VII at Sukkur, dated 2-10-1988; whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with 50% back benefits.
2. I have heard Mr. Sadiq Khan, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Shabbir Awan, the learned Advocate for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Mr. Shabbir Awan, the learned Advocate for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was not maintainable as it was not filed by the aggrieved person. This appeal, was filed by one Mr. Dilawar Hussain, a officer and attorney of the appellant-Bank. Mr. Shabbir Awan has relied upto decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No, SUK-264/1989, decided on 4-8-1990 in the case of Messrs United Bank Ltd. v. Muhammad Anwar Arain.
4. In the aforesaid case of Muhammad Arain also, the appeal was filed on behalf of the appellant- Bank by Mr. Dilawar Hussain who relied on his Power of Attorney as Authority to file the appeal. The Power of Attorney and pleas raised by the Bank in this respect were considered at length by this Tribunal. In the aforesaid decision, it was held, as under:-- 'However, all the powers conferred upon Mr. Dilawar Hussain under this power of attorney are subject to a rider clause in the power of attorney which is mentioned in para. 2 of the power of attorney. It authorises the officer to jointly with another Attorney of the bank for and in the name and on behalf of the Bank to do execute, transact and perform all or any of the acts, deeds, matters and things following at any place or places. The record does not show that Mr. Dilawar Hussain presented the appeal jointly with another authorised officer as required under the power of attorney. The diary sheet dated 18-4-1989 shows that appeal was presented by Mr. Dilawar alongwith his Advocate. Therefore it cannot be said that an authorised officer had presented the appeal on behalf of the aggrieved bank. No any other special authority for presentation of appeal has been produced to show that such authority was conferred upon the attorney. Mr. Sadiq Khan states that record shows that copy of power of other attorney Mr. Rahim Bux was also filed alongwith the memo of appeal. As pointed above, Mr. Rahim Bux does not appear to be present at the time of presentation of appeal. In the case of Nadeem Iqbal Khan v. Fauji Colour Pakistan Laboratories and others 1988 SCMR 1008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, upheld the order of the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the respondent, on the ground that it was not presented by duly authorised person."
5. In the instant case also, similar power of attorney has been produced of Mr. Dilawar Hussain Qureshi and another power of attorney of Mr. Rahim Bux has been filed but the diary does not show that Mr. Rahim Bux was present at the time of presentation of the appeal.
6. It has been consistent view of this Tribunal that appeal should be presented by any one of the aggrieved persons. Reference may be made to the decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No, SUK-368 of 1989, decided on 25-11-1989 and to the cases of Director, Medical Services, K.M.C. And another v.
Riaz Ahmad 1989 PLC 175; Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Karachi v. Chamber of Commerce and Industry Employees Union 1989 PLC 176 and Sijawa Khan v. Messrs Gul Ahmed Textile Industries (Pvt.) Limited 1989 PLC 862.
7. In view of the above factual and legal position, the appeal is dismissed.