This is an appeal from the decision of the Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala dated 5th of January, 1993, whereby the grievance petition filed by the respondent was accepted and it was held that the charge-sheet served on' him on 5th of October, 1991 was barred by time and no action could be taken on the basis thereof.
2. The facts briefly are that the respondent was working as an Assistant in the Habib Bank Limited, M.F. Elahi Building Branch, Sialkot. On 30th of July, 1987 he applied vide Exh.R.2- for reimbursement of an amount of Rs.7,626.50 which, according to him,, were incurred. By him on the medical treatment of his mother. He filed alongwith his application medical certificates, prescriptions and discharge slips issued by the Medical Officer Incharge, Cantt. General Hospital, Sialkot Cantt. He was, however, paid an amount of Rs.5,626.50 after its sanction vide letter dated 17th August, 1987 (Exh.R-20). After the above payment, the Bank held an inquiry into the genuineness of the demand of the respondent. It revealed that the medical certificates and the medicine bills were fake and forged.
Captain Dr. MA. Janjua of the Cantt. General Hospital, Sialkot Cantt. On 3rd of May, 1988 in writing falsified the claim of the .Respondent. Therefore, on 16th of May, 1988 the respondent was served with a charge-sheet (Exh.P.7) for gross misconduct for the above fraud. The respondent in his reply (Exh.P.2) denied the allegations. A domestic inquiry ensued. The respondent, however, did not participate in the inquiry. Therefore, the inquiry was held ex parte. The enquiry Officer found the respondent as guilty and submitted his report accordingly on 8th of September, 1988. No decision was taken on the inquiry report.
3. On 5th of October, 1991 the respondent was served with a fresh charge-sheet (Exh.P.7) for the same misconduct and on the same allegations on the plea that the first charge-sheet dated 16th of May, 1988 was not signed by the competent authority. The respondent after service of grievance notices on the appellants on 7th of October, 1991, filed grievance petition on 21st of October, 1991 on the grounds that the second charge-sheet was barred by time and that the appellants were not competent to serve a second charge-sheet on the same allegations in respect of which a domestic inquiry had already been held.
4. The appellants contested the grievance petition contending that the second charge-sheet was justified. Preliminary objections were also taken to the effect that the grievance petition was premature, that it was not maintainable in its present form, that it was mala fide and that the respondent had no locus standi to file the same.
5. The respondent examined himself as P.W.1 in support of his grievance petition while in rebuttal, Javed Masood, a Staff Officer, entered the witness --box as R.W.1.
6. The learned Labour Court vide its impugned decision accepted the grievance petition holding that the second charge-sheet was barred by time.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Standing Order 15(4) of the W.P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 provides that no order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct within one month of the date of such misconduct, or of the date on which such alleged misconduct comes to the notice of the employer. According to this provision of law, the first charge-sheet served on the respondent on 16th of May, 1988 was within time as it was on 3rd of May, 1988 that the Medical Officer concerned had in writing falsified the claim of the respondent. An inquiry was held in pursuance of this charge-sheet. The Inquiry Officer is stated to have submitted a report against the respondent on 8th of September, 1988. However, no final decision was taken in the matter. It was on 5th of October; 1991 about three and a half years after the first charge-sheet that the second charge-sheet was served on the respondent on the same allegations. No explanation was furnished for the inordinate delay. Therefore, the second charge-sheet was barred by time and no proceedings could be taken in pursuance thereof.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that since the terms and conditions of service of the respondent were governed by the Efficiency and Discipline (Banks and Financial Institutions)
Rules, 1975 framed by the Wage Commission in its Award which have got statutory force, the provisions of W.P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 are not applicable to him. He has cited National Bank of Pakistan, Sialkot and others v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1990 PLC 511 in which it was held that the terms and conditions of service of the employees of nationalised banks in Pakistan and other financial institutions were governed by the Wage Commission Award and that in case of such employees, W.P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 had no application. The above contention is controverted by learned counsel for the respondent. He has argued that neither the Efficiency and Discipline (Banks and Financial Institutions) Rules, 1975 framed by the Wage Commission in its Award nor the Habib Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981 carry statutory force because they lack prior approval of the Federal Government. He has cited National Bank of Pakistan and another v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1992 PLC 415 and an unreported judgment in re: National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 15th of December, 1991 and 10th of December, 1991, respectively in which it was held that the Efficiency and Discipline (Banks and Financial Institutions) Rules, 1975 were non-statutory. In view of these authoritative pronouncements, the stand taken by learned counsel for the respondent prevails. I, therefore, hold that the second charge-sheet served on the respondent on 5th of October, 1991 was patently barred by time and no proceedings could be taken against him on the basis thereof.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has addressed no arguments on the preliminary objections taken in the written statement filed in the Labour Court.
11. In the result, uphold the impugned decision and dismiss this appeal.
H.B.T./766/Lab.P Appeal dismissed