DECISION ' These appeals are against the orders of the learned Presiding Officer, VIIth Sindh Labour Court at Sukkur, dated 29-3-1989, whereby the grievance petition of the respondents were allowed. Legal objection has been raised by the learned Advocates for the respondents in both the appeals of similar nature, I therefore, will dispose of both the appeals by this single decision.
2. I have heard Mr.Sadiq Khan, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Ghoar Iqbal, Representative for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Mr. Ghoar Iqbal has taken the plea that the appeals were not filed by the aggrieved persons and therefore were not maintainable as held by this Tribunal in Appeal No, SUK-363 of 1989. Mr. Sadiq Khan contended that the grievance was against the institution viz. United Bank Limited and not against any particular officer and therefore the institution could present appeal through any of its authorised employee as laid down under Orders 29, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Read with Order 3, Rules 3, 4 and 6, C.P.C. He further contended that the officers would come and go but proceedings in the grievance application as well as appeal would continue. He further contends that person aggrieved here would be the Institution viz. United Bank Limited.
4. It may be pointed that the respondents in the grievance applications and the appeals are United Bank Limited through its President, Karachi, the President, UBL Head Office, Karachi the Assistant Vice-President, UBL Zonal Office, Jacobabad, the Executive Vice-President, UBL, Karachi, the Vice- President Circle Head, UBL, Circle Office, Sukkur and S.M. Risalat, Assistant Vice-President, Zonal Head UBL, Jacobabad but these appeals were presented by Mr. Dilawar Hussain Qureshi, attorney for the appellants.
5. It may be pointed that reply statements were signed by Mr. Nizamuddin Shaikh and Mr. Mohan Lal, Officers but these appeals were presented by Mr. Dilawar Hussain attorney for the appellants.
Mr. Dilawar Hussain had filed power of attorney executed in his favour by the United Bank Limited on the basis of which Mr. Sadiq Khan claims, that he was duly authorised to file the appeals on behalf of the aggrieved person viz, the Bank, Clause 9 of this power of attorney would be relevant and may be reproduced as under:-- "9. To commence, prosecute, continue and defend all actions, suits or legal proceedings whether civil, criminal or revenue including proceedings to procure or establish the bankruptcy or insolvency of any person or firm or liquidation or winding up of any company to compromise or refer to arbitration any claims or disputes either in such suits or proceedings or otherwise, to appoint Solicitors, Advocates, Pleaders, Vakils and other legal agents to make sign, verify, execute, plaints, petitions, written statements. Vakalatnamas, warrants of authority or any other papers.
Writings or documents expedient or necessary in the opinion of the Attorney to be made, signed, executed, verified presented or filed."
6. 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 All alongwith his Advocate. Therefore, it cannot be said that an authorised officer had presented the appeal on behalf of the aggrieved bank. No 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 appeals in the cases of Nadeem Iqbal Khan v. Fuji Colour Pakistan Laboratory and others 1968 SCM R 1089, 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.
7. It has been consistent view of this Tribunal that appeal should be presented by any one of the aggrieved person. 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.
Fiaz 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. M/s. Gul Ahmed Textile Industries (Pvt.) Limited 1989 PLC 262.
8. In view of the above factual and legal position, the appeals are ismissed. If the amount of back benefits has-been deposited by the appellants, it be released to the respondent after due verification after fortnight.