' Naeem Ahmed's grievance petition, filed under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was, on 16-10-1994, accepted by the learned Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad, and his reinstatement in service with all the back benefits was ordered. The aforesaid decision dated 16-10- 1994 has been assailed in appeal by the authorities of the Muslim Commercial Bank.
' Naeem Ahmed was an Assistant in the set-up of the M.C.B. Circle Office, Faisalabad, and was dismissed from service on 24-7-1993. The allegation was that he had stolen a cheque in the amount of Rs,18,744, in the name of one Muhammad Sarwar with an intent to receive the money through fraudulent means. In the 'domestic inquiry' held by the establishment, the employee was found to be actually at fault, for commission of the fraud, and he was removed from service. The learned lower Court had undertaken an objective discussion in that regard and has come to conclusion that it was a baseless allegation, that otherwise also could not be taken to have been established.
3 M/s. Shahpur Textile Mills had issued the disputed cheque, Exh. P-1, in the name of one Muhammad Sarwar, and the payment had to be made by the LM.C.B. Shadman Colony Branch, Lahore. One Muhammad Rafique had delivered it to Abdul Hafeez, Officer. Naeem Ahmed had allegedly deposited the cheque in his own PLS Account in M.C.B. Circular Road Branch, Faisalabad, through pay-in-slip Exh. P-2. It was shown to have been stolen from the table of aforesaid Abdul Hafeez, Officer of the Bank, who, however, did not lodge a report with the police about the alleged act of theft. Neither Muhammad Rafique nor Muhammad Sarwar, appeared in the Court as witnesses, nor ;even in the proceedings of inquiry, conducted by Mr. Muhammad Hanif Afzal, Assistant Vice-President of the Bank, who, however, was examined in the lower Court as R.W. 2, with a view to prove the proceedings of inquiry Exh.R-1 and the inquiry report Exh.P-7. In the opinion of the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, the Inquiry Officer, belonging to the banking institution had being under the control of the management, at the higher level, could not possibly conduct himself independently and impartially, This, however, may not be the whole truth.
Attendant circumstances of the case will have to be examined in order to arrive at a conclusion, whether the allegation against the official was not without truth and if it had been proved in the inquiry.
4. The official has given a complete lie to the charge, stating that he had been implicated in the affair falsely by Rana Muhammad Tahir Khan, Manager of the Bank, its Ghulam Muhammad Abad Branch (Faisalabad). He had earlier also got the official involved in a false theft case and services of the official had been terminated, although he was later reinstated in service, under orders of the Labour Court. On another occasion the official had been proceeded against for alleged absence from duty but had been exonerated. The Manager had handed over the cheque in question, alongwith certain other papers, to one Ch. Bashir Ahmed Nabha, Ex-MPA, and asked him to deposit the same in the name of Naeem Ahmed in his account in the M.C.B. Main Branch, Faisalabad. It has been so deposed by Bashir Ahmed, appearing as P.W. 1, who had even addressed an application Exh. P-3 to the Zonal Chief and the Circle Executive of the Bank, disclosing to him the conspiracy hatched against the Official (Naeem Ahmad). This he did when it was revealed to him that the task entrusted to him by Rana Tahir was by way of mischief and it was bereft of an element of innocence. Testimony of the Ex-MPA led in that behalf certainly inspires confidence, and the back ground of Rana Tahir's inimical posture towards the official serves to show that a manoeuvre might again have been made against Naeem Ahmad for landing him in real trouble, once he had secured his reinstatement in service, through intervention of Court of law, which development might have made Rana Tahir Khan all the more bitter and revengeful against the official.
5. It is a simple matter, and without much of difficulty, one may find out as to what is the truth. The crossed cheque had not been endorsed by Muhammad Sarwar, payee, in the name of Naeem Ahmed. It had to be credited in the payee's account only. Even if, thus, the cheque had been deposited in his own account by the official, he could not have payment of any money against it, and actually the payment had been stopped through a letter addressed by the M.C.B., Faisalabad to the M.C.B., Lahore (Shadman Colony Branch.
6. In banking institutions petty matters of misappropriation/embezzlement of money and theft of documents are taken serious notice of, and even criminal cases are got registered with the police.
It is intriguing that in the instant case no such move was made, and the bank restricted its action to a departmental inquiry had the result thereof. It has rightly been urged by the learned counsel for the official, concurred in by the learned Labour Court, that even if the cheque, in .Question, had been withheld by Naeem Ahmed, he could not possibly get it encashed and have a wrongful gain on that count. No wrongful loss was caused to the bank correspondingly, and the bank indeed could not possibly be defrauded in any manner, by reason of 'misplacement' or erratic deposit of the cheque.
7. I have a very sad experience about handwriting experts of the country, who almost always depose in favour of the party 'engaging' or examining them as witnesses. By giving technical tips or hints they try to look like real experts, although more often than not they are not sufficiently educated and trained in the art. They endeavour to make a display of their technical know-how, by resorting to technical terms, although their knowledge/training is no better than that of a lay man. I have always refused to be entrapped by such manipulations. In the instant case, Naeem Ahmed's signatures existing on the pay-in-slip Exh.P-2 do not have a striking resemblance with the genuine signatures available elsewhere, as for instance, on the grievance petition, grievance notice, power of attorney etc., and the expert has unnecessarily strained to establish such similarity. The authorities could also lay hands upon the account opening form, the signature card etc., for securing true samples of signatures, or the same could be pbtained before a Magistrate. This was, however, not done, and the official has denied the genuineness of his signatures existing on the other papers, dispatched along with the pay-in-slip to the expert. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that those papers pertained to the previous inquiry held against the official and had no nexus with or relevance to the present inquiry. It seemed certain that the expert was not being truthful in his testimony, and, at the instance of the bank management, made an unsuccessful bid to link the accused official with the disputed documents, the cheque and the pay-in-slip. The Manager-had, according to the official, resorted to fabrication and manipulation, by excluding the official from the entire exercise, in violation of Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants, as respondents before the Labour Court, had questioned the competence of the labour forum in the matter, by urging that the official could not be treated as a workman and the case was to be governed by the Wage Board Award, announced by the Wage Commission, constituted in the year 1974, under section 38-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The respondent's case, it has been urged before this Tribunal also, was out of the purview of the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, and the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
1990 PLC 785 and 1994 SCM R 2213 have been cited in support of his contentions by the learned counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent has repelled the same, by relying on PLD 1988 SC 53(67), 1989 SCM R 687, 1989 PLC 16, PLD 1992 SC 415, 1994 PLC 275, 1995 PLC 738 (Peshawar High Court), 1995 PLC 500 (Karachi High Court), and 1995 SCM R 690. It is submitted that the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has rendered its verdict in the case, reported as 1994 SCM R 2213, by being oblivious of the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, which have not been discussed. In 1995 SCM R 690, the earlier ruling, 1994 SCM R 2213, has also come under discussion. It was held in PLD 1988 SC 53, by which judgment as many as 75 identical civil appeals were disposed of, that it was not possible to sustain the view adopted by the High Courts of Punjab and Sindh to the effect that the Labour Courts had no competence in respect of the employees, whose terms and conditions of service were regulated by an Award of the Wage Commission. Employees of nationalized banks and other financial institutions could have recourse to the Labour Courts alright.
The Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh, in a case reported as 1995 PLC 714, has pronounced that even a single worker and not necessarily a class of workers may take his case as regards his employment or ouster from employment or in respect of the terms of his service or conditions of work, to a Labour Court, which Court may consider the grievance of the dissatisfied worker, as if it was in the nature of an industrial dispute. In 1990 PLC 238 (Lahore High Court), it was observed that jurisdiction of a Labour Court, in adjudicating upon a grievance of a dismissed employee of an establishment, in the context of the facts and circumstances of a particular case, and in determining if such an order was justified, as also in passing such other orders as may he just and proper, was unquestionable. In 1995 PLC 738 (Peshawar High Court), it was laid down that whatever be the nature of grievance of an employee, whether it was one mentioned in section 25-A(1), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, or of the kind specified in Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the competence of the Labour Court to deal with the same would flow from section 25-A, I.R.O., provisions of Standing Order 12(3) having specifically provided that a workman, who was removed from service in violation of the provisions of the Standing Order, could take his grievance to the Labour Court. Even otherwise, under section 35(5)(d), I.R.O. It was an ordinary function of Labour Court to exercise and perform such other powers as are or could be conferred upon or assigned to it by or under any other law. A Labour Court, while recording its decision upon a grievance petition, filed in pursuance of Standing Order 12(3), would not act as a persona designata. This being the latest legal position, status of the C aggrieved official claiming to be a workman and competence of the Labour Court to entertain his grievance petition and decide it cannot possibly be questioned.
The learned lower Court had, therefore, very correctly turned down different preliminary objections taken up by the establishment against the locus standi of the petitioner before it and the maintainability of the grievance petition and was also not incorrect in treating the grievance notice to be in order, having j emanated from the official, in time. Award of back benefits to the employee, who had wrongfully been removed from service, and thus made to face untold embarrassment, agony and financial hardships, as ordered by the learned lower Court, I must say, is also perfectly justified, in the circumstances of the case.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned decision rendered by the Labour Court has, for its basis, absolutely sound reasoning, and the appeal against it has no merit; and the same is hereby dismissed, with costs.