' By the present judgment, I shall dispose of the Appeal (No,432 of 1991) filed by the Authorities of the National Bank of Pakistan and the complaint (No,387/1995) lodged by Nasim Ahmad Chaudhary, with the reverse title.
2. Nasim Ahmad Chaudhary was employed by the Bank initially on 15-11-1963. He was promoted as Officer Grade-III, after about ten years, in the year 1973. In recognition of his services to the institution, as is claimed by Mr. Chaudhary, an additional increment was awarded and a letter of appreciation was issued to him. He was, however, charge-sheeted on 4-9-1984 (Exh.P-1), under rule 39, National Bank (Staff) Service Rules, 1980, and Mr. S. Maqsood Ahmad, Assistant Vice President, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. Mr.Nasim refuted the allegations, vide Exh.P-2. He was removed from service on 24-1-1985 (Exh.P-3). He filed a departmental appeal, Exh.P-4, which was rejected on 29-9-1985. The letter of rejection Exh.P-5 was communicated to him on 16-10-1985. He filed a Writ Petition (No,955 of 1986). The same was withdrawn on 14-9-1987, where after he made a grievance petition before Punjab Labour Court No,3, Lahore, at Ferozewala, on 8-10-1987. An application for condo nation, supported by an affidavit, was also submitted. The learned Labour Court gave its decision on 8-6-1991. An appeal was filed before this Tribunal by the National Bank people. The same was accepted on 24-10-1991. Mr.Nasim Ahmad filed a writ petition, but the same was dismissed in limited on 6-11-1991. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan, however, accepted the appeal, preferred by Nasim Ahmad Chaudhary, and remanded the case to this Tribunal for its decision on merits. The apparent delay that had been caused in filing the grievance petition before the Labour Court was condoned.
3. The Authorities of the Bank still seem to be of the view that the grievance petition was time- barred and was also not maintainable, as it was not preceded by a formal grievance notice. The respondent has repelled this objection and dispelled this confusion, b urging that there were doubts about competence of grievance petitions of workmen employed in nationalized banks and financial institutions, but when a clear and concrete view was expressed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as PLD 1988 SC 53, and this controversy was settled by the verdict that the Labour Courts of the country had jurisdiction in the matter, the Writ Petition (No,955 of 1986) pending before the Lahore High Court was, on 14-9-1987, withdrawn by Mr. Nasim Ahmad, who filed the grievance petition, in the Labour Court, thereafter on 8-10-1987. The Supreme Court has held, while deciding Civil Appeal No,455 of 1993, (Naseem Ahmad Chaudhary v. Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others), that the first appellate Court (this Tribunal), as also the learned Judge in Chamber (Lahore High Court) were in error in declaring that there was delay on the part of the aggrieved person in submitting a grievance petition under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and that the orders, rendered by these forums, had proceeded entirely on wrong premises. It was pronounced that the delay was rightly condoned by the learned Labour Court. The Labour Court's decision dated 8-6-1991, as such, should be treated as a sound one, in so far as the question of delayed submission of the grievance petition is concerned, but other questions involved in the controversy have now to be answered by this Tribunal.
4. It has been urged that before entering up a domestic inquiry against the accused official, his explanation or reply should have been considered and that the procedure adopted in this case, in appointing an Inquiry Officer, before charge-sheeting the official was uncalled for and unjustified.
Reliance has been placed on 1978 PLC 201/233, 1980 PLC 136, 1984 PLC 1028 and 1986 PLC 326.
5. The Inquiry Officer appeared before the Labour Court as R.W.2 and deposed that only one witness produced by the Bank had been examined in presence of the official, who was not provided adequate opportunity to cross-examine all the witnesses and belie the evidence let in by the management. He was again not afforded reasonable chance to lead evidence in defence, was thus not served with the second show-cause notice, and was also not personally heard before infliction on him the gravest penalty of his removal from service. The inquiry was conducted in disregard of rules of natural justice. Reference in that regard has been made to 1984 CLC 2782, 1996 PLC 250 and 1996 SCM R 201.
6. The official was charge-sheeted and appointment of Inquiry Officer was made under the Bank Rules, although the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1980 have been held by the superior Courts of the country as non-statutory rules and non-existent on the Statute Book. View in that behalf was expressed in 1990 PLC 142/197/593, and 1992 PLC 415.
7. Mr. Shuja-ud-din Ahmad Dar, Officer Grade-I/Manager, National Bank of Pakistan, Civil Lines Branch, Sheikhupura, who was also charge- sheeted, vide Exh.P-9, clearly said in his reply that the payment/receipt vouchers had been sent to the Treasury Officer, along with the scroll duly verified and signed by the Accountant, In charge, Government Section, on the same day or by next morning. This duty was being performed by late Abdul Majid, Accountant. Malik Muhammad Shafi, Officer Grade-III was also posted there to assist Mr. Abdul Majid. The Manager did not hold Mr.Nasim Ahmad to be guilty of any fraud or mis-appropriation. Mr.Asghar Ali, Senior Head Cashier, National Bank of Pakistan, Civil Lines Branch, Sheikhupura had also been charge-sheeted, for identical allegations, vide Exh.P-11, and he had taken up the stand that the cheque in question was genuine and had duly been passed by the officer. He did not attribute any lapse to Nasim Ahmad.
Malik Muhammad Shafi, Officer Grade-III too was charge-sheeted as per Exh.P-14. In his reply Exh.P- 15 he also said that filing and maintenance of the relevant advices was the duty of Mian Abdul Majid, Officer Grade-III, and Mr. Nishan Ali, Senior Assistant, working on Government Payment Seat.
Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, Senior Assistant, who too was charge-sheeted (Exh.P-17), in his reply (Exh.P- 18) did not implicate Nasim Ahmad. Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Cashier, again, was charge-sheeted (Exh.P- 19), and he too in his reply Exh.P-20 did not involve Nasim Ahmad. Malik Muhammad Yar Douna, Regional Head, National Bank of Pakistan, Lahore told the Superintending Engineer, Canals, that fraud and misappropriation, if any, had been committed by the staff of the Canal Office and the officials of the bank were not at fault. It was so stated in the document Exh.P-28. It is also to be noted that no loss whatever had been caused to the bank. Cheque for payment of Government money, in the amount of Rs,5,60,000, had been 'passed' by Malik Muhammad Tufail, Officer Grade- III, who used to deal with the Government Section. The amount was credited to the account of Muhammad Boota, contractor, who issued a cheque from, his own account, and this cheque was 'passed' by Nasim Ahmad. Defalcation or forgery, if any, must have taken place in the Government Section. Malik Muhammad Tufail was being pin-pointed for the gross irregularity, but as he was related to Mr. Muhammad Bashir, Senior Executive, the latter came to his rescue. Ultimately, it turned out to be all owing to son of Hussain Ali, S.D.O. Who deposited the entire money on behalf of the Irrigation people. The S.D.O. Had initially been suspended, but reinstated shortly afterwards. It has been so stated before me in the course of arguments, by Nasim Ahmad Chaudhary, who was, at the relevant time, secretary general of the trade union and his presence thus was not relished by the Authorities of the Bank. These assertions have not been controverted by the learned counsel representing the bank. It has at least not been averred by the bank people that either the bank or the Canal Department had suffered loss of even a penny. I do not think that Nasim Ahmad Chaudhary was at fault substantially. He has, however, suffered a lot, as he had to go up to the Supreme Court and had to approach the High Court twice by way of writ petitions. His case is being dealt with by this Tribunal for the second time, and he has been out of job since 24-1-1985. His date of birth, as borne out by the service record, is 15-11-1933, and even in normal course, he was to retire on 14-11-1993. So far, he states to have got nothing as 'retirement benefits', although he is about 63- 1/2 years of age, at present.
8. From a careful perusal of the entire material on record, and on assessment of the comparative arguments addressed in appeal by the learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Nasim Ahmad was charge-sheeted, was found guilty and was dismissed from service, on no valid premises, and for vindication of his honour and achievement of his rights he had to wage a judicial war' extending over years. There is no doubt about his being a workman, keeping in view the nature of his duties, and similarly the departmental appeal could well be treated as a grievance notice, as held by the learned labor Court, on the basis of the rulings reported as 1985 PLC 174 and 1987 PLC 530. I would endorse the decision announced by the learned labor Court, on as back as 8-6-1991, and would set aside the order of the official's dismissal from service. He will be deemed to have been continuing in service, till the age of superannuation. Since, however, he may not have been absolutely jobless throughout these years and may have been doing some other job or business for earning his livelihood, and as it has not effectively been asserted that he has not gainfully been employed anywhere, from January, 1985 to November, 1993, I would hold Nasim Ahmad entitled to half of the back benefits, as he has, during this period, not rendered service to the bank, in actual practice. All the same, he will have every right to get all his retirement benefits, in terms of pension, G.P.F. Gratuity, etc. To that extent the judgment of the lab our Court stands modified. The parties shall bear their respective costs of the litigation throughout.
9. In so far as the contempt petition filed by Nasim Ahmad Chaudhry is concerned, I do not think that any officer of the bank had any personal grudge against him or they were bent upon depriving him of his job, as also of all the benefits, during service and after retirement. No punishment need be awarded to them, or any one of them, the reason being the same, namely, the orders of the lab our Court were passed in his favour long ago, on 8-6-1991, and this Court has rendered a decision eventually in his favor, years after his retirement, and no officer of the bank could be condemned for having purposely and contumaciously acted in breach of lawful orders of these forums. But they will now act upon the decisions, in letter and spirit. The contempt petition is allowed and disposed of, in these terms.