' Mr. Muhammad Irshad ex-typist-cum-clerk of United Bank Ltd., Pakpattan Bazar, Sahiwal, filed an application in the Punjab Labour Court (Central Zone), Lahore, on 29th August 1972 under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, hereinafter mentioned as the Ordinance, against the Senior Vice-President, United Bank Limited, Lahore, and the Assistant Vice-President, United Bank Limited, Sahiwal, challenging the order of his dismissal dated 1st July 1971, further confirmed on 25th November 1971 by the Assistant Vice-President of the respondent-Bank. He was charge- sheeted on 19th June 1971 for the embezzlement of the various amounts of the Bank money and enquiry being entrusted to Mr. Abdul Rashid, Branch Officer, United Bank Limited, Pakpattan, ended in the impugned order. The petition was filed under section 25-A of the Ordinance to invoke cognizance by the Labour Court pleading to the effect that the enquiry against the petitioner was held in contravention of the relevant provisions of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, hereinafter mentioned as Standing Orders Ordinance, wherein he was not afforded suitable opportunity to defend himself. That his services were terminated,-vide letter of the respondent No, 2 dated 1st July 1971, but the order was actually communicated to him on 25th November 1971 and that during the course of the enquiry neither the documents purporting to show the alleged fraud were produced nor the petitioner was allowed to inspect the same or cross-examine the witnesses before the enquiry officer. The petitioner in protest made an appeal in addition to the representations to the Higher Bank authorities and the Government officers of the Labour Department, but to no avail. Subsequently the petitioner was informed through letter dated 20th March 1972, from Mr. Abdul Latif Khan, Staff Officer of the respondent Bank that Mr. Abdul Rashid Chaudhri, the Enquiry Officer, had been deputed to hold a fresh enquiry wherein Mr. Muzaffar Butt, a representative of the Pakistan People's Party, as well as an office-bearer of the Union of the employees of United Bank of Pakistan Limited, would join the enquiry with the co- operation of the Bank staff of Pakpattan Branch. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 24th March 1972 and he was assured that he would be re-instated in his post for want of evidence against him. But later on he was not officially informed with regard to the outcome of the second enquiry whereupon he served a notice of grievance on the respondent-Bank on 21st July 1972 and thereafter moved the Labour Court on 29th August 1972. He also filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of the delay in filing the main petition.
2. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent the pre liminary objections as regards limitation and jurisdiction of the Labour Court had been raised. It was pleaded on merits that the petitioner was involved in a serious fraud case and being duly served with a charge-sheet was given due opportunity of defence in the enquiry held against him which resulted in the termination of his services in due course to bring about the ends of natural justice.
3. This case was heard by the Labour Court No, 2 Central Zone, Lahore, and the evidence of the parties was concluded by it. The case was transferred to this Court in July 1974 on the establishment of Labour Court at Multan, when it was at the stage of arguments. Muhammad Irshad, petitioner examined himself in addition to Muzaffar Butt, Resident Estate Officer National Bank of Pakistan, Lahore apart from submitting a number of documents Exhs. P-1 to P-5 in support of his case. On the other hand Mr. Abdul Rashid, Zonal Officer United Bank, Limited Enquiry Officer, was examined on behalf of the respondent besides tendering in evidence documents Exhs. R.-1 to R P in defence of the petition.
4. Mr. Muhammad Irshad, petitioner gave his statement in support of his case while his witness Muzaffar Butt stated that being a worker of the Pakistan People's Party he had taken interest in the case of the petitioner and it was informed by the Management of the respondent-Bank that fresh enquiry would be held against the petitioner in which he would (witness) associate himself with the Enquiry Officer, that he joined the enquiry accordingly and observed that the petitioner was not shown the pass book and the cheques in respect of which the fraud was alleged against him and that he then told the Enquiry Officer that the enquiry should be improper if the documents were not shown to the petitioner. He further stated that the Enquiry Officer asked him to give his comments on the case which he later on submitted to the Enquiry Officer.. In the cross-examination he admitted that he had not read the service rules governing the employees of the United Bank Limited, and that during the enquiry he had gone through some books which had nothing to do with the allegations against the petitioner. Mr. Abdul Rashid, Enquiry Officer stated that on the report of the Inspection Officer dated 31st May 1971 (Exh. R-5) supplemented by another complaint Exh. R-6 the petitioner was given the charge-sheet Exh. P-1. He was appointed the Enquiry Officer and made an enquiry at Pakpattan in the light of the reply of the charge-sheet Exh. P-3. He recorded statement of the witness as (Exh. R-7) which were once signed by the petitioner and then scored off by him, that the petitioner tendered a receipt Exh. R-8 in evidence and that be (the witness) ultimately submitted the enquiry report (Exh. R-9). In the cross-examination he stated that no comprehensive proceeding of fresh enquiry was taken on 24th March 1972 at Pakpattan except that Muzaffar Butt (petitioner's witness) told him that the petitioner should be shown merely whether he be innocent or guilty and that the enquiry proceeding of that day was taken up at the instance of the Pakistan People's Party. He also stated he did not prepare any enquiry , report on that date.
5. The first point to be determined is whether the petition under section 25-A was filed in the right forum of law and within limitation period. The decision on this point requires the ascertainment of the definite date when the dismissal of the petitioner was finally ordered by the competent authority and the date when the decision was intimated to the petitioner, According to the paragraph 4 of the petition, the Assistant Vice-President, United Bank Limited, Sahiwal hereinafter mentioned as respondent No, 2,-vide his letter, dated 1st July 1971 terminated the petitioner's services which was communicated to him with another letter from the same respondent, dated 25th November 1971. There is no direct evidence on record to show that the order, dated 1st July 1971 was served on the petitioner before 25th November 1971. The latter date can, therefore, be assumed as the actual date when the impugned order was served on the petitioner on his own admission.
The petitioner normally could seek a remedy,-vide Orde I 18 of the Standing Orders Ordinance after giving 15 days' grievance notice to the Bank authorities by filing an application before the Labour Court within one month of the rejection of the said notice. The simple plea in this behalf raised on behalf of the petitioner is that he had filed appeals and representations to the higher Bank authorities besides drawing the attention of some office-bearers of the Pakistan People's Party for intervention and redress of his grievance as a result of which fresh enquiry was made on 24th March 1972 and ultimately he was informed through letter, dated 8th July 1972 from Labour Officer (Factories) IV, Lahore, addressed to Zonal Officer, Labour Welfare, Lahore, copy endorsed to him that he should seek his remedy in the Labour Court.
6. It is crystal clear from the record that the petitioner did not file any appeal to any competent authority of the Bank except for some representation leading to the intervention of Mr. Muzaffar Butt, a representative of Pakistan People's Party, managing the issuance of a letter dated 20th March 1972, from Mr. Abdul Latif Khan, a Staff Officer of the Bank, intimating the petitioner about a fresh enquiry to be held on 24th March 1972. Obviously, the letter dated 20th March 1972 did not bear any authority or sanction behind it inasmuch as the Staff Officer of the Bank had no power to issue the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner unless he was directed to do so under the competent direction which could not be traced out from record from any quarter whatsoever.
The only inference that can be drawn from the circumstances is that it was under the influence and pressure of some political elements that the aforesaid letter was issued and a sham enquiry was conducted on 24th March 1972, while associating a representative of the political party for which there was no sanction in the eye of law.
7. Similarly the letter, dated 8th July 1972, from Labour Officer (Factories) IV, Lahore addressed to the Zonal Labour Officer could not be considered to be a valid basis for the extension of limitation in favour of the petitioner. Because the said letter could not be linked with any proceeding of the domestic enquiry competently authorised at any time after the order of dismissal was admittedly conveyed to the petitioner. It, therefore, follows that right from 25th November 1971 to 9th August 1972, the petitioner did not take any valid step in aid of the extension of limitation. Consequently his petition under section 25-A of the Ordinance was neither filed in the right forum nor within limitation period and liable to be dismissed. Apart from the disposal of the petition on the preliminary objection of limitation and jurisdiction, I have also examined the case of the petitioner on merits. A perusal of the relevant record reveals that the petitioner was given a show-cause notice, a proper charge-sheet and was called upon to face a regular enquiry. Mr. Abdul Rashid Chaudhri made the enquiry who recorded the evidence put up against the petitioner and afforded opportunity to the latter to put up his defence as a result of which an elaborate enquiry report was prepared by him with comprehensive findings against the petitioner. The enquiry report being submitted to the Assistant Vice-President of the United Bank Limited, Sahiwal, he passed the order of dismissal dated 1st July 1971 (Exh. P-2) after considering the explanation of the petitioner. The said order was further confirmed through letter dated 25th November 1971 by the same Officer in reply to the representation of the petition. The domestic enquiry was thus validly completed resulting in the impugned order. The petition having no force is dismissed.