This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the judgment dated 30-9-1991 of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the decision dated 13-7-1991 recorded by the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala, whereby respondent No.1 was directed to be re-instated in the service of Habib Bank Limited.
2. Briefly the facts are that respondent No.1 was appointed as a Cashier in the service of the petitioner-Bank on 28-4-1977 on his application-cum-bio--data, dated 26-12-1983, wherein he mentioned that he had passed the Intermediate Examination in 1984 in Second Division from Allama Iqbal College, Sialkot. He gave another Biodata at the time of his regularisation in service in 1984 in which he again mentioned that he had passed Intermediate Examination in the year 1974 in Second Division. He was inducted into service vide Appointment Letter No.GKI/786 dated 21-4-1984.
In para.8 of the appointment letter, it was expressly stated that the letter of appointment will stand revoked and cancelled and no further correspondence will be entertained if he were to fail to complete all the employment documents or give any information which is found to be false or any fact is misrepresented or suppressed. Subsequent to the issuance of appointment letter (supra), respondent No. 1 submitted attested copies of his educational certificates including copy of the Intermediate Certificate bearing No. 4428, dated 31-8-1974, which was referred to the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore for verification. The certificate was found to be bogus. Consequently, he was served with a show-cause notice dated 21-2-1985. He confessed his guilt and asked for mercy vide petition dated 9-3-1985. The competent authority, after considering his explanation, decided to terminate his services vide letter dated 30-6-1985.
3. Respondent No.1 served a grievance notice dated 14-1-1989 to the petitioner inter alia contending that the allegations levelled against him did not constitute misconduct because it was not done during the employment of the Bank, inasmuch as, he joined the Bank' in 1984, whereas the so- called bogus certificate related to 1974 and on that basis the respondent could not be removed from service. The petitioner-Bank turned down the grievance petition. Respondent No.1, therefore, approached the Labour Court vide petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), on 18-2-1989.
The Labour Court accepted the grievance petition by order, dated 13-7-1991 with the following observations:-- "Petitioner when inducted in service was Matriculate and joined the service on that basis. The fake certificate was for the year 1974. Either it was misconduct committed during the course of service or not was required to be inquired after charge-sheet and inquiry in the manner provided. Since petitioner was not moved after inquiry and as a result of responsibility fixed by way of inquiry therefore order dated 30-6-1985 was liable to be struck down on this ground alone."
It was also held that the petitioner-Bank may, if so advised, conduct a fresh inquiry for appropriate action against respondent No.1.
4. The petitioner as well as respondent No-1 filed appeals against the aforesaid decision of the Labour Court. Respondent No-1 claimed back benefits and also sought setting aside of the direction of the Labour Court for holding fresh inquiry. The petitioner sought setting aside of the order of the Labour Court for re-instatement. Both the appeals were heard together by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and disposed of vide its consolidated judgment dated 30-9-1991, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner Bank was dismissed. As regards appeal preferred by respondent No.1, it was held that since the production of bogus certificate and respondent No.1's remaining in service from 1977 to 1984 were admitted, no inquiry was called for in that regard. It was, however, held that the submission of bogus certificate in the facts and circumstances of the case was inconsequential as the admitted position was that the minimum qualification for the post of Cashier was Matric and, therefore, by mere production of bogus certificate no advantage was procured by respondent No.1 who remained in service from 1977 to 1984. It was further observed that if respondent No.1 had requested to be promoted to the next higher post had been Intermediate, it could be held that the certificate was produced to deceive the petitioner-Bank by asking them to act upon it and to consider him for promotion, which is not the case here. However, the direction of re-instatement in service without back benefits was maintained.
5. Mr. Zahid Hamid, learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank argued that the Tribunal as well as the Labour Court are in error in holding that the production of bogus Intermediate Certificate by respondent No.1 was not a. Misconduct. He submitted that intention to deceive the petitioner-Bank by claiming higher education standards and by giving a false bio-data at the time of confirmation of his service in 1984 cannot but be held to be misconduct.
6. Ch. Muhammad Latif Rawn, learned counsel for respondent No.1 vehemently argued for upholding the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on the ground that minimum qualification required for the post of Cashier was Matriculation and that no advantage having been produced by respondent No.1 on the basis of bogus certificate of Intermediate, he could not be removed from service.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. A bare perusal of clause 8 of the appointment letter dated 21-4-1984 issued to respondent No.1 would show that his appointment was liable to be revoked if any information given by him was found to be false. The respondent No.1 admittedly gave a false information that he has passed the Intermediate Examination also on the basis of the Intermediate Certificate produced by him, which was found to be bogus and, therefore, it cannot be successfully contended by him that this information did not weigh with the employer-Bank at the time of his regular induction into service in 1984.
8. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 13-7-1991 of the Punjab Labour Court No 7, Gujranwala and the order dated 30-9-1991 of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, are hereby declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The writ petition is accepted, but the parties are left to bear their own costs.