1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---The facts, which form the background to this appeal shortly stated, are as follows:-- ' Muhammad Aslam Cheema, respondent herein, started his career as a Junior Clerk being appointed in the National Bank of Pakistan (appellant herein) in September, 1964. In course of time he was promoted and appointed as Officer Grade III on 1-3-1976 in Begowal Branch of Sialkot District. After working in that capacity for some time he was also asked to perform the functions of the Manager of the said Branch in the absence of the regular Manager who had been transferred.
2. He continued to do the work of both until July, 1982 when he was transferred from Begowal Branch to Sambarial Branch as Officer Grade III. From there he was transferred to Shakargarh Branch and while he was posted there he was served with a charge-sheet detailing the alleged irregularities committed by him, while posted as Officer Grade III (ex-Manager) in the Begowal Branch.
3. ' The respondent submitted his reply to the charge sheet wherein he denied the charges levelled against him. A domestic enquiry followed. However, no clear finding about his guilt or otherwise was recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Nevertheless, vide order dated 3-9-1983 he was removed from service of the Bank on the basis of the alleged misappropriations committed at Begowal Branch.
4. ' The respondent challenged the said order through a grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court No,VII, Gujranwala under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the I.R.O.) The said learned Court, after recording evidence of the parties ordered the reinstatement of the appellant with back benefits (vide order, dated 2-7-1984).
5. ' Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-Bank preferred an appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore. The said learned Tribunal, vide order, dated 27-4-1986, allowed the same on two- fold grounds; firstly, that as at the relevant time the respondent was serving as Manager he was not, therefore, a workman; hence he had no locus standi to file a grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Secondly, that as the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the nationalised Banks were governed by the Award of Wage Commission which could be enforced by the N.I.R.C. The Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. It may be mentioned that at the said point of time a Division Branch of the Lahore High Court had, by its judgment dated 10-4-1985, passed in Writ Petition No,3453 of 1982 (reported in 1985 PLC 1053), taken this view. However, the aforesaid judgment has since been overruled by this Court in Iftikhar Ahmed and others v.
6. President, National Bank of Pakistan and others PLD 1988 SC 53.
7. ' The respondent challenged the abovementioned order dated 27-4-1986 passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in writ jurisdiction which was allowed. Hence this appeal.
8. ' The High Court observed that so far as the second ground taken by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is concerned, the judgment of the High Court on which it was based having since been overruled in Iftikhar Ahmed's case PLD 1988 SC 53, a workman of a nationalised Bank, who was dismissed, had, therefore, a locus standi to file a grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O.
9. As for the first ground on which the Appellate Court's order was founded namely whether the respondent was a workman within the meaning of the said term given in clause (xxviii) of section 2 of the I.R.O. The High Court observed that though the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal had found that he was not a workman and normally such a finding of fact could not be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court but since the said finding had been recorded as a result of the misreading and non-reading of evidence, interference therewith was possible. It was noted in this connection that the learned Appellate Tribunal had observed that the respondent had admitted in cross-examination that he worked as Manager in Begowal Branch and during that time he discharged all the duties of a Manager; that he had also admitted that his basic salary at that time was Rs,1,200 or Rs,1,300 per month and that he used to write A.C.Rs, of the employees working under him. But on a closer pecusal of the statement made by the respondent before the Labour Court, the High Court observed that what he had stated was that he was actually appointed as Second Officer in Begowal Branch in 1977 and on the transfer of Bashir Ahmed in June, 1978 he was entrusted with the additional charge of the post of Manager. However, despite his additional duties as Manager he continued performing his original clerical duties as Officer Grade III. In his statement he had also said that during the period he performed the additional duties of Manager at Begowal Branch only two men were working therein namely the cashier and the respondent himself. He had also given details of the duties performed during this period at Begowal Branch, which were mostly of . a clerical nature. The learned High Court, therefore, concluded that the Labour Appellate Tribunal had failed to consider that the duties performed by the respondent as Manager at Begowal Branch were additional duties, which the respondent was performing in addition to his original duties as Officer Grade III. The learned Judge also noted that no order existed showing that the respondent was regularly appointed as a Manager and that no additional staff was posted at Begowal Branch, after the respondent started discharging the duties of the Manager and that the respondent continued performing the duties of the staff officer in the said Branch. The final conclusion reached by the High Court as a result of the examination of the evidence, which it noted had been overlooked by the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, was that the actual position was that the tespondent while serving as Officer Grade III at Begowal Branch was performing clerical duties though he was also entrusted the additional charge of the post of the Manager of the said Branch.
10. Leave was granted to examine, inter alia, whether despite the fact that respondent No,3 continued to function as a Manager of the Begowal Branch from 1978 to 1982 and the misconduct alleged against him took place during that period, could be still get benefit of being a workman.
11. ' Mr. Naeem Bokhari, learned counsel for the appellant-Bank and Mr. Muhammad Zaman Oureshi, learned counsel for respondent No,3, have been heard at full length and they have brought to our attention the entire case-law on the subject as well as taken us through the relevant record of this case.
12. ' The main submission of Mr. Naeem Bokhari on the factual aspect was that in the reply submitted by respondent No,3 to the charge-sheet served on him he had not denied his status as Manager although in the very title of the charge-sheet it mentioned that it was issued to Mr. Muhamamd Aslam Cheema, Officer Grade III (Ex-Manager).
13. ' We do not think that the circumstance that the respondent did not expressly deny his status as ex-Manager (which designation was added against his substantive designation of Officer Grade III) in brackets against his name is of any significance. The issue arising in the charge-sheet was not that the respondent was a Manager during the period when the alleged irregularities were committed but the issue therein was whether he was indeed guilty of forging of singatures, making withdrawals fraudulently and committing other irregularities and the main effort made by the respondent through his reply was to counter these allegations and to show that they were false, baseless and that, on the countary, he had worked in an honest and efficient manner in the discharge of his duties. Consequently, the failure by the respondent to specifically deny the designation of "ex-Manager" against his name in the charge-sheet is, in the context, of no consequence. On the other hand, as the High Court has found in its judgment that the appellant- Bank had never issued any letter appointing the respondent as Manager although under the Labour Laws "every workman at the time of his appointment, transfer or promotion shall be provided with an order in writing, showing the terms and conditions of his service" indicated that he was never appointed as Manager of the Branch.
14. ' We may add that he was not issued even the power of attorney by the appellant-Bank conferring on him the authority to perform functions of the Manager on behalf of the Bank. Moreover, as pointed out by the High Court, it was not established on the record, that the duties performed by the respondent during the period from 17-6-1978 (when he took over as Manager) till July, 1982 (when he was transferred to Sambarial Branch as Development Officer) showed that the duties performed by him were the duties which are mainly performed by the Manager. On the other hand, his main duties continued to be the duties which were mainly of a clerical nature that the was performing as Officer Grade III earlier and which he continued to perform even after he was asked to act as Manager pending the appointment of a permannent incumbent to the said post.
15. ' We also observe that the Enquiry Officer also did not find that the allegations of the irregularities etc. Levelled against the respondent had been established.
16. ' In all these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.
17. This appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed accordingly. However, in view of the delicacy of the question, we would leave the parties to bear their own costs.