1. ' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---This is an appeal with the leave of this Court against the judgment dated 24- 4-1994 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No,2059 of 1989, filed by the appellant bank against the orders dated 30-4-1986 and 26-3-1988 passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), dismissing the same. The brief facts are that respondent No,1 was employed in 1960 as a Stenographer and in 1977 he was promoted as Grade-III Officer. It seems that while he was working as the Manager of the appellant bank's Kharian Branch he was served with a charge-sheet on 9-2-1980 for the alleged misconduct, misappropriation, embezzlement, and irregularities. Respondent No,1 submitted his reply dated 5- 4-1980 to the above charge-sheet. However, he was dismissed from service on 31-8-1980. It appears that respondent No,1 filed before the Punjab Labour Court No,7 a petition (Petition No,349 of 1982) under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the IRO), assailing the above order of dismissal from service. The above petition was resisted by the appellant bank. The learned Labour Court dismissed the same by judgment, dated 17-9-1984, on merits by holding inter alia that respondent No,1 had admitted certain facts on the basis of which charge-sheet was founded. Against the above judgment respondent No,1 filed an appeal before the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore (Appeal No,JM-549/84-Punjab), which was accepted in the following terms: "4. It has been argued that the appellant was not a workman since he was' Manager Chapper Branch while committed misconduct. The relevant time is not when misconduct is committed but when action is taken. When an action is taken, the employee has to consider which is his remedy and where it lies. So the duties performed by the appellant at the time he was dismissed are relevant but the contention of the respondent is not that at that time the appellant was not a workman. So no question of the appellant being not a workman arises. However, in view of 1985 PLC 1053 the appellant is not a workman but the matter is subjudice before the Supreme Court.
5. As a result,. The appeal is accepted to the extent that the grievance petition is directed to be returned to the appellant for presentation to the proper forum. If the Supreme Court holds that Labour Courts have jurisdiction, the appellant shall stand reinstated in service as no proper inquiry was held. However, in that eventuality he will not be entitled to back benefits as he did not assert that he after his dismissal from service remained jobless."
2. ' It seems that the matter referred to in above-quoted para. 4 of the Tribunal's judgment was decided by this Court through the judgment in the case of Iftikhar Ahmad and others v. President, National Bank of Pakistan and others (PLD 1988 SC 53), wherein inter alia the following was held:-- "It was no longer disputed before us that the Ordinance applied to the Banks and such of their employees as were covered by the definition of worker or workman as given in section 2 (xxxviii).
3. The judgments under appeal were disposed of after examination of the question of jurisdiction alone. To determine whether an employee was worker/workman or not an inquiry into facts is also required. The grounds upon which the status of the appellants as workers/workmen was challenged were not examined in the High Courts. We would accordingly express no opinion in the matter."
4. ' It appears that before the above judgment was delivered, respondent No,1 filed a civil suit on or about 30-6-1986. However, upon the rendering of the above judgment he withdrew the above suit and filed a contempt application before the Tribunal, in which notices were ordered to be issued to three bank officers, namely, Haji Abdul Jabbar , President, Surkhuroo Khan, Senior Vice-President, Gujranwala, and Muhammad Iqbal, Vice-President, Guj rat .
5. ' That upon receipt of above contempt notices the appellant bank filed above writ petition in 1989 assailing the above judgment of the Tribunal dated 30-4-1986, and the above order dated 26-3- 1988 ordering the issuance of contempt notice. The same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by the above judgment. Thereupon the appellant bank filed a petition for leave to appeal, in which leave was granted to consider whether the impugned judgment of the learned Judge in chamber was in consonance with law, keeping in view that in the case of Iftikhar Ahmad v. President, National Bank of Pakistan (supra) the question whether the employees of the bank were workmen or not was not decided.
6. ' In support of the above appeal Mr. Zafar Iqbal, learned counsel for the appellant bank, has vehemently contended that since respondent No,1 while discharging the function as a Branch Manager, had committed the alleged acts of misconduct, he could not be treated as a workman for the purpose of above charge-sheet dated 9-2-1980 and the resultant order of dismissal. To reinforce the above submission, he has referred to an unreported judgment of this Court in the case of National Bank of Pakistan, through its Regional Head v. Punjab Labour Court No,5.
7. Faisalabad and Safdar Ali Khan (Civil Appeal No,206 of 1988, decided on 9-1-1991), in which the following was concluded: ' "It is clear, therefore, that the respondent did not fall within the definition of a 'workman' being incharge, Manager of a Branch of the Bank, in which capacity he was departmentally proceeded against and dealt with. Hence, the Labour Court lacked the jurisdiction. The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Labour Court and of the High Court restoring the respondent to office are set aside. "
8. ' On the other hand, Mr. Farooq Zaman Qureshi, learned counsel for respondent No,1 has contended that in the case in hand the learned Labour Court recorded as a finding of fact that in view of his duties and functions. Respondent No,1 was a workman and therefore, he was covered by the definition of "workman". His further submission was that since the appellant bank had not filed any appeal against the above judgment of the Tribunal dated 30-4-1986, they were bound to reinstate respondent No,1 in terms of the above-quoted para. 5 of the judgment. He has also submitted that at no point of time respondent No,1 was appointed as the Manager and therefore, he was workman as held by this Court in the case of Inamur Rehman Gillani v. Jalal Din and another (1992 SCM R 1895).
9. ' At this juncture it will be advantageous to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment of the Labour Court, whereby respondent No,1 was held as a workman, which reads as under:-- "It is admitted before me that Efficiency and Discipline Rules framed for the Bank Financial Institution are applicable to the facts of the case and provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance are not applicable. The bank filed suit through President, Senior Vice-President and Vice-President etc. And thus no exception can be taken to the address of the respondent. I treat this petition as one under section 25-A, I.R.O. No doubt petitioner was serving as manager of the bank and his basic salary was more than Rs,800. I have to see if the employment of the petitioner was mainly in Managerial, Administrative or Supervisory capacity. Employer is a person who employs workman under contract and is responsible for the management, supervision or control of the establishment.
10. The petitioner was not an employer as there was identifiable independent body managing and controlling the bank affairs. Workman is a person employed in an establishment or industry for hire or reward. Khalid Pervaiz witness of respondent stated that in Chapper Branch petitioner served as manager where Khalid Pervaiz served as cashier and there were two guards and one peon. I hold the view that petitioner working as manager was doing ministerial and clerical job as well. Cashier used to handle the cash and petitioner was preparing all other documents in his own hands. There is no denial of the claim of.Petitioner that he used to maintain draft issue books, pay books, current, saving credit and debit vouchers and periodical returns. Petitioner stated that leave was granted to the cashier by the Zonal Office. Only the peon and guards were granted leave by the petitioner. I hold the view that job of petitioner was not mainly supervisory, managerial or administrative. I declare petitioner is a workman and I hold that Labour Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the petition."
11. ' A perusal of the above-quoted para. Indicates that the Labour Court recorded a finding of fact, on the basis of evidence that respondent No, I was a workman. Against the above finding, the appellant bank did not file any appeal or any other legal proceedings. On the contrary, respondent No,1 had filed the above appeal before the Tribunal for the reason that his petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Was dismissed on merits. The Tribunal granted the relief to respondent No,1 to the extent quoted hereinabove. It was ordered that if the Supreme Court holds that the Labour Court had jurisdiction, respondent No,1 shall stand reinstated in service as no proper inquiry was held.
12. However, he would not be entitled to back benefits. In the case of Iftikhar Ahmed (supra) this Court had held that the Labour Court had jurisdiction in respect of the appellant bank's employees who fall within the ambit of the definition of worker-workman as given in clause (28) of section 2 of the I.R.O. In the present case, as pointed out earlier, the Labour Court had recorded the finding of fact as to the factum that respondent No,1 was a workman and that no appeal Was directed by the appellant Bank against the above finding. On the contrary. The Tribunal proceeded with the appeal of respondent No,1 on the assumption that he was workman. In this view of the matter, it would have been appropriate if the' appellant Bank should have been reinstated respondent No,1 without back benefits as was ordered by the Tribunal.
13. ' The above appeal is disposed of in terms of short order of even date which reads as follows: "ORDER ' For the reasons to be recorded later on, the appeal is dismissed. Respondent No,1 would be reinstated in terms of the conditional order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal without back benefits.
14. Respondent No,1 also undertakes to withdraw the contempt proceedings. There will be no order as to costs."