' This appeal is directed against an order dated 30-11-1998 passed by Punjab Labour Court No,7 at Gujranwala whereby the respondent (Khawaja Sajjad Mehmood) was reinstated with back benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case leading to the instant appeal are as under:-- ' Khawaja Sajjad Mehmood respondent was employed in Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and was serving in Ghakkar Mandi Branch at the relevant time. During his posting at Ghakkar Mandi as Assistant, his work and conduct was found most unsatisfactory by the bank authorities and consequently he was charge-sheeted. As per the charge-sheet he allegedly assaulted the Manager of the Branch; the second allegation was that he was a habitual late comer and the third was regarding his absence from duty from 3-8-1992 to 18-8-1992. The respondent categorically denied the above allegations vide his written reply which was found unsatisfactory. Consequently a regular enquiry was ordered by the Authority and in consequence of the enquiry report his service was terminated vide order, dated 26-7-1993.
3. Feeling aggrieved the respondent (Khawaja Sajjad Mehmood) sought the indulgence of the Labour Court by moving a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The same was contested by the Muslim Commercial Bank Limited. Both the parties led evidence (oral and documentary). The learned lower Court after its appraisal/scanning gave verdict in favour of Khawaja Sajjad Mehmood respondent and ordered the appellant-Bank to resintate him with back benefits vide the impugned order, dated 30-11-1998.
4. Feeling aggrieved Muslim Commercial Bank Limited (hereinafter called the appellant) has come up in appeal and I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the impugned order is flimsy, illogical and illegal. It is not based on evidence, cogent reasoning and legal grounds. The only ground which has heavily weighed with the learned Labour Court is that the date of enquiry was not communicated to the respondent. This observation of the learned Court below is factually incorrect. The respondent (Khawaja Sajjad Mehmood) was duly informed about the date and venue of enquiry and this fact stands fully established through postal receipt Exh.R.6. Even otherwise, the respondent 'has frankly conceded that the said intimation was sent at his address but the same was received by his brother Khawaja Altaf. There is nothing on the file which may tend to show that he is living at some different address. The appellant was bound to send this information regarding holding of enquiry through post. This legal requirement was met in letter and spirit. His absence for a short while from his residence is hardly sufficient to rebut the appellant's evidence of sending of enquiry information to the respondent.
' Even otherwise it has been held in a chain of authorities by the superior Courts and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if a letter is sent through post and it is established through acknowledgment receipt that it was delivered at the correct address it shall be deemed that the same was delivered to the addressee. Reference may be made to PLD 1981 SC 225, 1980 PLC 985 and 1972 PLC 247 (Kar.).
6. The learned counsel further contends that the learned Labour Court did not touch the evidence available on the file particularly when the respondent had frankly conceded so far as the genuineness of the charge was concerned it was, therefore, obligatory for the trial Court to discuss the evidence produced by the parties for and against the summary of allegations. Controverting the above argument, the learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the instant appeal alleging that it was not filed by authorised person/persons.
7. Before adverting to the arguments propounded by the learned counsel' for the appellant I propose to dispose of the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent regarding competency of the instant appeal on the ground that it was filed by an unauthorized person.
8. Needless to say the appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Ordinance, 1984 and is operating as a Banking Company within the ambit of Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962. The appellant has its registered head office at Karachi and it operates through its Chairman, Executive Vice-Presidents, Vice-President and other functionaries fully authorized by the Bank. In the instant case the appeal was filed by Ghulam Rasool Khan, Executive Vice-President and Attorney of the appellant and Muhammad Umar, Vice-President and Attorney of the Bank.
Both are very senior officers. Being attorneys of the appellant-Bank they were fully competent to file the instant appeal. The respondents (General Manager, Regional Manager and Local Manager) who were impleaded in the grievance petition are subordinates to the appellants. Executive Vice- President (Ghulam Rasool Khan) and Muhammad Umar (Vice-President) exercise supervisory control over a large number of branches including Ghakkar Mandi Branch, District Gujranwala, where the, petitioner/respondent was serving at the relevant time when his service was terminated hence they were fully competent to assail/challenge the judgment of the Labour Court before this Tribunal: Even otherwise, they have not only filed the instant appeal by virtue of their office but also as attorneys and in that capacity they were fully competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by filing an appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court. The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent being frivolous is accordingly overruled.
9. I now propose to examine the merits of the case. As per allegations levelled against the petitioner/respondent Khawaja Sajjad Mehmood was a habitual late comer, remained absent without leave for more than ten days, misbehaved and assaulted the Manager and left his place of duty without permission etc. He was charge-sheeted and submitted a reply to the charge-sheet which was found unsatisfactory. An enquiry was accordingly ordered and as per allegations of the appellant the respondent did not turn up. Consequently, an adverse enquiry report was submitted before the Authority by the Enquiry Officer and on the basis of the same, he was dismissed from service.
10. The sole question which falls for determination of this Court is whether the petitioner/respondent (Khawaja Sajjad Mehmood) was fully alive of the date and venue of enquiry and he intentionally and wilfully refrained from joining the enquiry with ulterior motive as alleged by the appellant or he had no intimation/knowledge about the initiation of enquiry against him nor did he receive any information/notice of the same through post and the notices sent through post by the appellant to the respondent were not unconformity with the requirement as contemplated under the law.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and have perused the record with the aid of the learned counsel for the parties. What I have been able to gather is that the bank authorities had been sending notices to the petitioner/respondent through registered A.D. Letters which stand fully proved through A.D. Receipts Exhs.R-7 and 8 but there is nothing on the file which may tend to show that the petitioner/respondent intentionally and wilfully avoided service because the aforesaid receipts do not bear his signatures. I am, therefore, in full agreement with the learned Labour Court that the petitioner/respondent was condemned unheard. He was proceeded ex parte without satisfying the legal requirement of notice hence the enquiry report carries no evidentiary value because the same was conducted in the absence of the petitioner/respondent and behind his back. The witnesses who were examined by the bank authorities were not put to the treat of cross-examination hence the genuineness of their version cannot be taken as a gospel truth. To this extent I am fully satisfied that the petitioner/respondent (Khawaja Sajjad Mehmood) deserved the indulgence of the Labour Court on this score alone.
12. It is now well-settled that an employee cannot be visited with the extreme penalty of dismissal on the basis of an ex parte enquiry. The impugned order passed by the bank , authorities on the basis of ex parte enquiry report was, therefore, illegal and without authority and I concur with the finding of the Court below (Labour Court) to this extent. However, keeping in view the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner/respondent by the bank authorities I am fully convinced that he is neither entitled to back benefits nor an order of clean reinstatement. He ought to be put to fresh enquiry to be held by a senior and impartial officer appointed/nominated by the competent authority who shall hold and conclude the same within 30 days from the date of his appointment by the authority concerned and the authority shall be competent to proceed further in the matter on the basis of that enquiry but till then the appellant is directed to reinstate the respondent without back benefits. Since the enquiry was conducted in absentia and I have ordered for fresh enquiry to be conducted by a new Enquiry Officer to be nominated by the authority concerned, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Labour Court has not touched the merits of the case has become redundant.
13. Kh. Sajjad Mahmood respondent is directed to appear before the Regional Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Regional Office, Trust Plaza, Gujranwala on 30-10-2001 and the said Manager/Authority shall intimate him about the date and venue of fresh enquiry. The respondent shall also be intimated about the Inquiry Officer on the said date. In case of his non-appearance before the Regional Manager on the said date he shall immediately be suspended and shall be proceeded ex parte. He is directed to join the enquiry proceedings by appearing before the Regional Manager on the said date, and before the Enquiry Officer on all subsequent dates, otherwise, law will take its course.