DECISION ' These 2 cross appeals have been filed against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,VII at Sukkur, dated 13-3-1989; whereby he ordered the reinstatement of the workman Rub Ali Dayo (hereinafter called the respondent); with 50% back benefits. The United Bank Ltd.
(hereinafter called the appellant) has filed Appeal No,SUK-244 of 1989 against the order of reinstatement of the respondent, and the respondent has filed Appeal No,SUK-257 of 1989 against the order with-holding 50% of his back benefits. I intend to dispose of both the appeals by this single Decision.
2. I have heard Mr.Sadiq Khan, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr.M.L.Shahani, learned Advocate for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The facts appear to be that the respondent admittedly was working as Cashier in the Hamayun Branch of the appellant bank during the relevant period. He is alleged to have committed certain temporary misappropriation of certain amounts mentioned in the charge-sheet during the period between 3-4-1984 to 31-1-1985. On the report of the Central Inspection Team, dated 16-3-1985, the respondent was charge-sheeted, vide charge-sheet, dated 3-4-1985. After domestic enquiry, the respondent was found guilty of the misconduct and his services were terminated, vide order, dated 3-5-1986.
4. Admittedly, the respondent was charged and the enquiry was conducted and the order of dismissal was passed under United Bank Limited Staff Service Rules, 1980; which have been framed on the recommendations of the IIIrd Wage Commission Award. This Tribunal has been consistently holding that the Rules framed on the basis of the Wage Commission Award are not Statutory Rule., so as to exclude the application of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). This view also finds support from a recent decision of Sindh High Court at Karachi, reported in 1990 PLC 197. In view of this legal position, the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, would be applicable in the case of the respondent.
5. The learned Labour Court has held the charge-sheet to be time-barred. As already pointed the charge-sheet is dated 3-4-1985 and covers certain acts of misconduct allegedly committed during the period from 3-4-1984 to 3-1-1985. As such, the charge-sheet was not issued within one month of the alleged commission of the acts of misconduct. However, Mr.Sadiq Khan learned Advocate for the appellant contends that the appellant for the first time, came to know of the misconduct on 16-3-1985 on the receipt of the report of the Central Inspection Team. As the charge-sheet was issued after one month of the commission of the alleged misconduct, the burden of proof shifted upon the appellant bank to prove that they had come to know of the alleged misconduct within one month of the issuance of the charge-sheet. The mere fact that it is mentioned in the charge-sheet that on the report of the Central Inspection Team, the charge- sheet was issued, would not necessarily show or prove that the acts of misconduct came to the knowledge of the appellants on 16-3-1985. Banking is very responsible Institution and there are in built systems of checks and counterchecks and recently even computerized system has been introduced in the banks. Prima facie it is not possible to believe that the acts of misconduct. Would have gone unnoticed by the Manager of the bank or the agents of the employers for such long time. Mr.Sadiq Khan, learned Advocate has submitted that the Manager has also been charge- sheeted and he has also been removed from service and his appeal is also pending before this Tribunal. Be that as it may; the fact remains that the Manager was an agent of the employer and the fact that he has been dismissed on the same charges would clearly show, that the employer's agent had knowledge of the misconduct at the time of the commission of the alleged acts of misconduct. I need not comment on the case of the Manager which will be decided on its own merits unprejudiced by this order. The Manager being the agent of the employer, therefore, the employer would be deemed to be in know of the acts of misconduct. This view also finds support from the fact that no responsible officer of the Bank has been examined to show or to specifically state that the employer had no knowledge of these acts of misconduct before the report of the Central Inspection Team. In view of this position, the learned Labour Court has rightly held that the charge-sheet is time-barred.
6. The respondent is admittedly a Cashier and was doing skilled clerical work, therefore, he is a workman as defined under Standing Orders Ordinance. Under Standing Order 15(4), no workman can be dismissed unless he is informed, in writing, of the acts of misconduct within one month from the date on which the misconduct was committed or within one month from the date when this misconduct came to the knowledge of the employer. I have already held that prima facie, the charge-sheet was issued after the period of one month of the alleged acts of misconduct. There is no proper proof to show that these acts of misconduct came to the knowledge of the employer within one month from the date of misconduct. As such, in view of Standing Order 15(4), the order of dismissal is illegal. Further more I find that according to Mr.Nizamuddin, the only witness examined by the appellants, the A.V.P. Has no powers to issue termination order of the Cashier unless so authorized. The order of termination has been issued by A.V.P. In the case of the respondent. The order does not show that the A.V.P. Was authorized to issue such orders nor such authority has been produced. In view of the above discussion. I find no merits in the Appeal No,SUK- 244 of 1989 filed by the appellants, which is accordingly dismissed.
7. The respondent has been reinstated on technical ground, as such, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Labour Court allowing only 50% back benefits to the respondent.
Therefore, I would also dismiss Appeal No,SUK-257 of 1989, filed by the respondent. The amount of back benefits, deposited by the appellant bank before this Tribunal, be released to the respondent, after 15 days; after due verification.