DECISION ' This appeal arises from the order of Sindh Labour Court No, VII, Sukkur, allowing an application under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1%9, directing reinstatement of the respondent in the service of the Bank.
2 The respondent was appointed in the year 1976 as a Massenger in the service of the Bank. By 1980 he was promoted as an Assistant. The respondent had access to the Account Books and Ledgers in that Branch. He mischievously altered the balance of PLS Account of one Mr. Hafeezullah from Rs,1,800 to Rs,11,800 by addition of figure (1) on the left side. Then, in collusion with Mr. Hafeezullah, he fraudulently withdrew an amount of Rs,10,000 in small amounts through collaboration of the account holder Mr. Hafeezullah. Likewise he changed other PLS Account also to maintain the figure of overall balance. The fraud was detected and the respondent was served with a charge-sheet.
The respondent confessed his guilt before the Enquiry Officer in reply to the charge-sheet and also in his statement. On conclusion of the enquiry he was dismissed from service.
3. After the fraud was detected an F.I.R. Had also been lodged against the respondent with F.I.A.
(Banking Circle). The respondent was challaned before the Special Court (Offences in Bank) at Karachi and the respondent was acquitted by a judgment, dated 17-12-1990 as the charge against him had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt had been allowed to the respondent.
4. Thereafter on 12-2-1991 and 17-3-1991 the respondent sent grievance notice to the Regional Head, where he was working and to the Assistant Vice-President respectively claiming his reinstatement on the ground of acquittals. The appellant-Bank made a reply showing that the respondent was not legally entitled to be reinstated. The respondent, then, filed his grievance application in Sindh Labour Court No, VII at Sukkur and the Court ordered reinstatement of the respondent, with full back benefits.
5. The learned counsel on behalf of the National Bank of Pakistan has argued firstly that the respondent after the dismissal cannot be considered to be a workman secondly that his grievance notice and grievance application before the Labour Court are hopelessly time-barred having been filed nearly three years after the expiry of the time allowed and lastly that the conviction in a domestic enquiry had not necessarily to be altered if the respondent was given benefit of doubt and acquitted in a criminal case.
6. It has been pointed out that the respondent could not be considered to be a workman as per definition of worker under section 2(xxviii) of the I.R.O., 1969. Worker has been defined as any person not falling within the definition of employer but is employed in any industry for hire or reward and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Ordinance includes a person who has been dismissed or removed from employment in connection with or as a consequence of an industrial dispute. The learned counsel has referred me to the ruling published in 1994 SCMR page 2213 in the case of Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Salcem. In that case leave to appeal was granted to examine the question whether employee of Karachi Port Trust whose services had been terminated otherwise than in connection with an industrial dispute was a workman as defined by the Industrial Relations Ordinance. It was held that in case of an individual dispute of an employee unrelated to industrial dispute that such employee was not a workman for the purposes of section 25-A read with section 2(xxviii) of the I.R.O., 1969 and he was not entitled to the remedy provided by section 25-A of the Ordinance.
7. It has next been argued that the grievance application before the Labour Court was hopelessly time-barred. Notice of grievance had to be given within three months of its occurrence. The employer had to reply within 15 days. Within two months of the reply the petition had to be filed before the Labour Court. In the present case the respondent was dismissed from 17-8-1987. He sent notice of grievance on 4-2-1991, three years and five months after the occurrence. Thereafter, the petition was filed before the Labour Court. The explanation of the respondent is that after his dismissal he had filed a Departmental Appeal before the Bank's official and after the decision of the criminal case had preferred the grievance notice: but there is no such provision of appeal in the I.R.O. The Labour Court had, thus no jurisdiction to hear the grievance application under section 25-A of the I.R.O., after three years.
8. On merits it has been shown that the respondent in his reply to the charge-sheet admitted that he inadvertently altered account of Hafeezullah. In his other statement also he has admitted the same facts. He is said to have pleaded guilty during the domestic enquiry and he was, therefore, dismissed from service. The domestic enquiry was a proceeding between the workman and his employer while the criminal proceedings were totally different being between the individual and the State. A person acquitted in the criminal case for want of sufficient evidence can still be punished as a result of the domestic enquiry. Therefore, no fresh cause of action accrued to the worker for reinstatement after the decision of the criminal case in which he was allowed the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The service of the bank is very delicate and A the bank servant has to be above suspicion. Lack of confidence by the bank authorities would be sufficient reason for excluding such servant from bank employment. In this case the bank has acted after discovery of the fraud and such a person cannot for any reason be reinstated in service.
9. The decision of the Labour Court is, therefore, set aside, order of dismissal by the bank is maintained and the appeal is allowed.