DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VII at Sukkur, dated 30-3-1989, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed.
2. 1 have heard Mr. Sadiq Khan, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan, Advocate for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan has taken plea, that the appeal has not been filed by the aggrieved person Sand therefore was not maintainable as held by this Tribunal in Appeal No,SUK-363 of 1989.
Mr. Sadiq Khan, contended that the grievance of the respondent was against the bank, viz. United Bank Limited and not against any particular officer and therefore the appeal could be presented through any of its authorised employee as laid down under Order 29, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Read with Order 3, Rules 3, 4 and 6 of C.P.C. It is also submitted that the officers may come and go but the proceedings in the grievance application as well as appeal would continue. He further contended that the person aggrieved by the impugned order is the bank.
4. It may be pointed that the respondent in the grievance application and the appellants are United Bank Limited through its Senior Vice-President, Hyderabad, Mr. Muzaffar Ali Memon, Assistant Vice-President, Zonal Office, Nawabshah and Mr. Maqbool Ahmed Junejo, Assistant Vice-President, Circle Office, Hyderabad.
5. It may be pointed that reply statement was signed by Mr. Maqbool Ahmed Junejo, but this appeal was presented by Mr. Dilawar Hussain Qureshi 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 appeal 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 claim 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 join 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 Ali alongwith his Advocate. Therefore it cannot be said that an authorised officer had presented the appeal on behalf of the aggrieved bank. Nor 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. Fuji Colour Pakistan Laboratories and others 1988 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. There 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 25-111989 and to the case of Director, Medical Services, K.M.C. And another v. Riaz Ahmed 1989 PLC 175, Chamber of Commerce & 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 appeal is dismissed. If the amount of back benefits has been deposited by the appellant, it be released to the respondent after due verification after fortnight.