DECISION ' This appeal has been remanded for re-hearing by the High Court of Sindh to decide whether the respondent, a Manager of National Bank of Pakistan, Nawabshah can be considered to be a workman as held by the Labour Court and the Tribunal (Mr. Justice (Retd.) Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi).
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent Mir Hasan Bughio a Bank Officer in Grade-II was appointed Manager of the Main Branch Of National Bank in Nawabshah District at Nawabshah Town in the years 1982 and 1983. As a Manager it was one of his duties to grant loans after obtaining sanction from the Head Office. Thus, in his capacity as Manager he paid loans to various persons amounting to Rs,39,62,361. The recovery of all these loans appeared doubtful as there were grave irregularities in the documentation discovered by the Audit Officer. Explanation of the respondent was obtained and he explained that these irregularities had occurred due to pressure of the parties, controlling office and paucity of trained staff. One of the persons to whom loan was granted by the respondent was his own son aged 18 years who received payment of Rs,3,00,000. In his sons' application for loan his sur name as "Bughio" was omitted. Thus, in respect of the objections listing 24 loans, totalling approximate by Rs,93,00,000 the explanation of the respondent was found unsatisfactory. He was charge-sheeted and the domestic enquiry was ordered against him. One Mr. F.R. Khan Ghori, Assistant Vice-President as the Enquiry Officer, submitted his report dated 4-12-1984, giving separate finding on each charge. He stated in the report that the accused was responsible for granting these loans, in gross violation of the various schemes and Staff Service Rules, and was liable for severe punishment for his negligence, misuse of powers and misconduct. The respondent was then given time to recover these loans within six months before passing of the final orders, but he could not succeed in effecting the recoveries. The competent Authority then passed an order dismissing the respondent from service of the National Bank on 10- 6-1987. On 4-7-1987 the respondent filed his departmental appeal before the President. After waiting for about six months he sent a grievance notice to the President and then filed a grievance petition under section 25-A, of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in the Sindh Labour Court No, VII, Sukkur. On 22-4-1989 the 1st Sindh Labour Court, Karachi to which the case was transferred gave the decision that the respondent be reinstated in service with full back benefits, holding that the petition was maintainable as the respondent officer was a workman within the meaning of section 2(xxviii) of I.R.O., 1969. The learned Labour Court also held that the domestic enquiry was defective and against the principles of natural justice.
3. The appellant National Bank of Pakistan then filed an appeal against the order of the Labour Court which was heard and decided on 19-3-1990 by the Appellate Tribunal (Justice (Retd.) Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi). It was held by the Tribunal that when the alleged acts of misconduct were committed the respondent was Manager of the Main Branch but at the time when he was charge- sheeted he was working in the Zonal Office as Recovery Officer for the loans. As Recovery Officer his duty was to go into the field to contact the borrowers and to press them to repay the loans. That because he used to be alone without any clerks for affecting recoveries he was actually working as a workman as held by the Labour Court. That he was dismissed on account of his failure to recover the loans but for this failure he was not separately charge-sheeted again and no fresh enquiry had been held. That the order of dismissal was therefore against the principles of natural justice. The learned Appellate Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal of the National Bank and upheld the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court.
4. I have heard the arguments of Mr.. Gulzar Ahmed, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. M.L.
Shahani, Advocate for the respondent. In my opinion broad view of the case should be taken without emphasising mere technicalities. The respondent as Grade-II Officer of National Bank can hardly be considered to be a labourer or worker within The meaning of definition of worker in the I.R.O. Worker is defined in section 2(xxviii) of the I.R.O. As under:-- "Worker and workman means any person not falling within the definition of employer who is employed in an establishment or industry for hire or reward but he does not include any person who is employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacity or who being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding Rs,800 per month or because of the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reasons of powers vested in him performs functions mainly of managerial nature."
5. This is no doubt a very wide definition but the question is whether the respondent performed the functions of managerial or administrative nature or worked as manual worker or a clerk. On this point there is sufficient evidence to show that the Manager of the Main Branch in Nawabshah was an officer of the Bank and not a worker or labourer. As Grade-II Officer of the National Bank the respondent was drawing pay of Rs,3,040 in the year 1982. He was Incharge Officer of the National Bank of Pakistan in the Main Branch. As Manager he had to perform functions mentioned in Appendix I of National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1973 constituted under Ordinance No, XIX of 1949. As Manager under Serial No, 6 of the Appendix he could accept resignation of any employee working under him. Under Serial Nos. 7 and 8 he could grant or withhold increment to employees. As Manager he could permit employees to leave the station. Under Serial No, 11 the Manager could dismiss and respond the employees. Thus, his duties were of administrative nature and he had powers to grant leave to the members of the staff serving under him. As against this the respondent has mentioned in his evidence that he was assigned duties to maintain ledgers, prepared drafts, draft correspondence with the Zonal Head, go for field work for the purpose of recoveries, prepare monthly A returns for Zonal Office and State Bank and he even used to sign the Muster Roll kept in his Branch as the member of the staff. In cross-examination he has admitted that there were 25 persons working under him. That the ledgers and the Registers were maintained by clerks. That he used to do the work of clerks only in- their absence. Thus mainly his duties were managerial, supervisory and administrative and whatever clerical duties were performed by him were incidental to his main duties as an employer. It has come in evidence that he had even appointed a certain member of staff. It is therefore not because of his designation as Manager but because of the nature'of his duties that he was the Principal Officer of National Bank Main Branch, Nawabshah. By no stretch of imagination can he be considered to be a workman or worker as defend in the I.R.O.
6. Since the respondent was an officer of the Bank and not a worker he would not be governed by the Standing Orders Ordinance or the I.R.O. And his petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Would not be maintainable in the Labour Court. As an officer of the National Bank the respondent would be governed by the National Bank of Pakistan Employees Statutory Rules of Service and not by the Rules of Domestic Enquiries under the Labour Laws.
7. In the result the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Was not maintainable. The order of the Labour Court is therefore set aside and the appeal of the National Bank of Pakistan is allowed.