DECISION ' This appeal arises from decision of Labour Court No, VII, Sukkur, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for reinstatement in service was dismissed.
2. The appellant was posted as Accountant in the Muslim Commercial Bank Branch, Pano Akil. He was an Officer Grade-II and he also acted as Second Officer after the Manager. At times during absence of the Manager he acted in his place. The nature of his duties was managerial and supervisory.
3. The appellant's two sons Noor Muhammad and Asadullah were having accounts in this Branch of the Bank. In the account of Noor Muhammad overdrafts to the extent of Rs,11,00,000 were allowed without sanction of the Zonal Vice-President. All such cheques usually pass through the Accountant to the Manager and in these cases even the withdrawal cheques were found to be in the handwriting of appellant Shafi Muhammad. It is alleged that misappropriations in the Bank accounts were detected to the extent of more than two crores and the Manager Mr. Rehmatullah Mehar was also charge-sheeted and dismissed from service. He has absconded since then. The appellant too was served the charge-sheet and after the domestic enquiry in which the appellant participated, the appellant was dismissed from service on 13-8-1991. He then served the respondent-Bank with grievance notice and filed grievance application in the Labour Court at Sukkur on 16-9-1991. The learned Labour Court found that the appellant was at that time drawing a salary of Rs,4,565 per month as Accountant and Bank Officer next to the Manager at Pano Akil Branch. That he was working in managerial capacity and was not therefore a workman. His grievance petition could not therefore be entertained by the Labour Court under section 25-A of the I.R.O. As the provisions in the I.R.O. Were not applicable in his case. The learned Labour Court also found that the alleged misconduct regarding misappropriation of Rs,11,00,000 in the account of his son Noor Muhammad had been proved and he was very much involved in the alleged misappropriation. But for want of jurisdiction, the application was dismissed, though was stated by the learned Labour Court that the application was also without merit. Against this decision the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
4. The appellant has admitted in his cross-examination before the Labour Court that at the time of termination of his service he was working as Officer Grade-II in M.C.B. Pano Akil Branch and at that time he was drawing a salary of Rs,4,565 per month. That he was Second Officer in the Pano Akil Branch after the Manager. In the absence of the Manager he used to work as Incharge Manager of MCB, Pano Akil Branch. He also used to supervise the work of the staff of the Bank consisting of 14 persons. That any payment made in the Branch came within the knowledge of the Accountant of the Branch. It has further come in evidence of Mr. Rafique Dosani the Manager appointed subsequently that the cheques for Rs,5,00,000 and 7,00,000 in the account of Noor Muhammad were actually in the handwriting of the appellant and even the payment slips were countersigned by the appellant. The plea of the appellant is that these overdrafts were allowed by the Manager but it has been alleged that the Accountant and Manager acted in collusion and misappropriated 2.5 crores from this Branch of the Bank. The Manager after his dismissal has abkonded and his whereabouts are not known.
' Mr. M.L. Shahani for the appellant has argued that nature of the work done and not the designation is the deciding factor to be considered whether the appellant was a workman or an officer but even appellant's own admission clearly shows that his material duties were managerial and supervisory. On merits also it has been proved that any such payment made in that Branch of the Bank would pass through the Accountant. He had therefore full knowledge of the transactions.
Even the cheques and the payment slips were found to be in the handwriting of the appellant. The appellant could not therefore escape liability on the plea that the transactions were between his son and the Manager and he was out of it. It has thus been sufficiently proved that the Labour Court could not entertain the application of the appellant under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 as the appellant was not a workman and also that he was clearly concerned in the misappropriation of Rs,11,00,000. The decision of the Labour Court is accordingly maintained and the appeal is dismissed.