This judgment will dispose of Appeal No. 58 of 1993 "Allied Bank of Pakistan etc v. Qazi Tariq Javed" and Appeal No. 59 of 1993 "Qazi Tariq Javed v. Allied Bank of Pakistan etc." as they arise from the common judgment of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haripur dated 27-5-1993 whereby while accepting the grievance petition filed by the respondent in Appeal No. 58 of 1993 he was reinstated in service and was held entitled to 50 per cent of the back benefits. Appeal No. 58/1993 has been filed by the Bank to call in question the legality of the impugned order in its entirety while Appeal No.59 of 1993 has been moved by the petitioner-appellant wherein he has prayed for allowing him full back benefits and wages.
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of these two appeals are that the petitioner-respondent was initially recruited as Naib-Qasid in the Bank but was subsequently promoted to the rank of Assistant. It was alleged in the grievance petition that the petitioner being activist in trade union ultimately he became Senior Vice-President of the union. In that capacity he complained to the higher Bank Officers about the incumbent Regional Chief and others about the grave illegalities committed by these officers which annoyed them. It was also averred that in order to take vengeance these officer manoeured false charge against the petitioner for committing misappropriation of Rs.127 in respect of electricity bill. The gist of this charge was that the petitioner had received an amount of Rs.127 on 7-7-1985 as surcharge of two bills of electricity from one Sheikh Riaz Ahmed but did not deposit this amount with the WAPDA authority and had, therefore, committed embezzlement. The Enquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry held the petitioner guilty of the charge and consequently by order dated 30-9-1985 he was dismissed from service. The grievance notice did not yield any result and, therefore, the Labour Court was approached by the petitioner under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance for his redress. It would be pertinent to refer briefly to the evidence that was examined at the trial of the grievance petition as that would help in understanding the factual aspect of the case in its correct perspective. P.W. 1 is Jalil Muhammad, Officer Allied Band who exhibited various documents from the service record of the petitioner. P.W. 2 is petitioner himself who gave details of the circumstances which resulted into his dismissal from service and who described himself as not guilty. On the other side R.W. 1 is Iftikhar Ahmed, Senior Clerk WAPDA who brought the relevant bills on record to prove that the amount of surcharge of Rs.127 of that two bills has not been deposited by the petitioner. Mumtaz Ali, Vice- President was examined as R.W.2. He stated that he was Zonal Chief Abbottabad during those days and that on receipt of the complaint regarding misappropriation of the amount in this case he directed the Branch Manager of the Bank to probe into the matter. On the receipt of his report show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and as his reply was found unsatisfactory, therefore domestic enquiry was conducted into his guilt. The Enquiry officer held him guilty and therefore, the petitioner was rightly dismissed from service. Imdad Hussain was the Bank Manager during those days who gave statement in line with the statement of R.W. 2 and there is no need to repeat it. R.W. 4 is Farrokh Niaz who had conducted the enquiry against the petitioner and he explained various steps taken by him during the enquiry.
3. I studied the record in the light of submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The learned counsel representing the Bank while arguing pointed out that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter and, therefore, the impugned order was bad on this count alone. This objection has no force, firstly, because it had neither been raised in the written statement nor was agitated before the Labour Court as is clear from the judgment. Secondly, the Bank employees are not governed by any statutory rules and the services of the petitioner not falling under the executive or managerial category would be regulated by the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and Standing Orders Ordinance and the Labour Court would thus have jurisdiction in the matter. It was next contended that the finding reached by the Enquiry Officer on factual aspect would not be amenable to interference by the Labour Court. This is very sweeping argument and would not be available in every case. If the Labour Court finds serious defects and irregularities in the enquiry which has resulted in causing miscarriage of justice or if the Enquiry Officer has either not taken into consideration the relevant evidence or has misread the evidence then the Labour Court would not be debarred to set at naught such an enquiry report. No hard and fast rules of universal application can be suggested for non-interference in the enquiry report as every case proceeds on its own facts. The learned counsel for the Bank argued that the charge against the petitioner had been fully proved and, therefore, the Enquiry Officer rightly recommended his dismissal from service and the impugned order of dismissal was, therefore, exceptionable. On the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioner-- employee refuted this argument and maintained that the impugned order of the Labour Court was perfectly correct. It is to be pointed out that the person i.e. Sheikh Riaz Ahmed whose amount was allegedly misappropriated and who according to the Bank Officers made a complaint in this respect has not been produced to substantiate his plea. Moreover, even the complaint in this respect has not been proved as the complainant himself failed to appear in support of his allegations. This assumes importance in the context of the stance of the petitioner that he has not received the amount of surcharge mentioned in the bill. Besides, the petitioner was able to produce Abdus Sattar a brother of the complainant who also sworn an affidavit Exh. P.W.2/1 and definitely stated that the amount of surcharge was not deposited. The statement of R.W. 4 Farrokh Niaz the Enquiry Officer is referred as he stated "I do not know said Sheikh Riaz Ahmed. The said complaint was not written in my presence. I have not recorded the statement of Sheikh Riaz Ahmed, because it was a domestic inquiry. I did not confront the complaint to the petitioner. Nor I recorded his statement in this regard". R.W. 2 Mumtaz Ali, Vice-President in his statement also conceded "It is correct that petitioner in the capacity of Senior Vice-- President of Union made a complaint to the Chairman, Banking Council against me and other officers of the Bank. It is correct that one Sheikh Iqbal Ahmed, SVP, Circle Incharge was appointed as an Inquiry Officer who probe the matter. The learned Labour Court has taken into consideration all the materials on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the receipt of the surcharge amount of Rs.127 by the petitioner could not be established by the Bank and that the possibility of false involvement of the petitioner on account of retaliation could not be ruled out. I have not been able to find any legal or factual flaw in the decision of the Labour Court and accordingly dismiss the appeal of the Bank. The appeal filed by the petitioner-employee is also without any substance as in the peculiar circumstances of this case he was rightly found not entitled to full back benefits. His appeal is also dismissed. Both the parties would bear the cost of litigation.