DECISION This appeal by the National Bank of Pakistan is directed against order of VIIIth Sind Labour Court, Larkana, setting aside the reversion order of the Bank against the respondent-employee.
2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent Rahimdad was posted as "Senior Head Cashier at Kashmore Branch of the National Bank of Pakistan. One Liaquat Ali Soomro worked as Head Cashier under him at the same Branch. As per the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules it was the duty of the Senior Head Cashier to post the payment out of the Bank in the Payment Register. The Head Cashier Liaquat Ali Soomro handled the cash in the Cash Department. A Government payment was made out of this Bank, for the amount of Rs.4,64,912 the Head Cashier Liaquat Ali Soomro the amount as Rs.14,64,912 paid out, instead of the actual payment of Rs.4,64,912 thus Rs.10,00,000 were misappropriated by Liaquat Ali Soomro, Head Cashier. Liaquat Ali Soomro was challaned by the Police in the Banking Court for misappropriation of Rupees Ten lacs. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and fine. It came to light, that, had the respondent Rahimdad, the "Senior" Head Cashier, performed his duty by making entry in the payment register himself, this misappropriation by Mr. Soomro could not have taken place. These duties of Senior Head Cashier are reduced to writing under the Rules and the Senior Head Cashier was aware of these duties.. There was, therefore, possibility of collusion between the Senior Head Cashier and the Head Cashier. In any case this was a clear at of neglect of duties by Rahimdad, the Senior Head Cashier. Accordingly on 27-1-1992 the Regional Head of National Bank of Pakistan charge-sheeted respondent Rahimdad Noonari for neglecting to post Government Payment in the Cashier's Payment Register, allowing this work to be done by Liaquat Ali Soomro, Head Cashier himself, who made a wrong entry- and misappropriated Rupees Ten lacs. Had Mr. Rahimdad properly performed his duties this misappropriation could not have been possible. That Rahimdad was, thus, guilty of gross-misconduct, dereliction of duties, indiscipline and disobedience.
3. In reply to the charge-sheet respondent Rahimdad explained that since Liaquat Ali Soomro, Head Cashier, was the Custodian and Incharge of Cash Department, but in actual practice he (Rahimdad) was working under him rather than supervising his work. That duties to making entries of Government payments were assigned to him but the Manager had not implemented these written assignment of duties and the work was being done by Liaquat Ali Soomro.
4. A regular enquiry was then held against Rahimdad Noonari in the Head Office through the Assistant Vice-President who passed orders on 1-12-1993, demoting Rahimdad Noonari, Senior Head Cashier to the junior post of Head Cashier. Rahimdad filed his grievance petition under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 before the Sind Labour Court No. VIII, Larkana. The learned Labour Court set aside the order of demotion and restored Rahimdad to his original post with all its monetary benefits.
5. Under the National Bank of Pakistan Statutory Rules of Service, 1973 "Senior" Head Cashier has been classified as Officer Category 1. Head Cashier Category II Grade II and in Category II Grade-III and Cashiers in Category III. The Senior Head Cashier is, therefore, an Officer Grade in the National.
Bank of Pakistan drawing salary above Rs.7,000 and other allowances. The Senior Head Cashier had to enter into an Agreement with the Bank and he was bound to keep true and faithful account, and observe all the Rules and Regulations of the Bank, and according to clause 19 of the Agreement his appointment as Head Cashier could even be terminated without any notice.
6. Therefore the first and foremost point for' consideration in this case is whether respondent Rahimdad was a workman or he was an Officer designated as Senior Head Cashier. Looking to the nature of his duties over and above the Head Cashier, he cannot be regarded as a manual labourer or clerk. Under Chapter II - Section III, clause (15), sub-clause (5) the Bank had a right of dismissing an employee without any notice if found guilty of misconduct, breach of trust or neglect of duties.
7. Thus an officer of the Bank in Grade-II is not a workman and the I.R.O. And the Standing Orders do trot apply to his case. Under the Service Agreement the Bank has the right to punish such employee and even dismiss him.
8. Of late corruption and corrupt practices have entered the Banks also. Even Bank Managers misappropriated lacs of rupees from the Banks, and for any technical defect in the enquiry proceedings, they seek redress under the Labour Laws and want to be reinstated with all the back benefits. If such Officers are allowed recourse to labour laws and reinstated the public is bound to lose faith in the System of Banking in this country. Therefore the cases of Bank Employees have to be strictly dealt with and every dereliction of duties or negligence is sufficient, for punishment of such employee under the Bank Rules.
9.. In the present case the Labour Court No. VIII, Larkana had no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition of the Senior Head Cashier under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969. The order exonerating the officer and setting aside his reversion order was, thus, in excess of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The order allowing him the monetary benefits can also not be allowed to stand. Both the orders are not maintainable. The orders of the Labour Court are, accordingly, set aside and the appeal of National Bank of Pakistan is allowed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.