Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MEHRAM KHAN VS Respondent: ASSISTANT VICE-PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, HYDERABAD
1988 P L C 319
1988 P L C 319 [Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind]
Present: Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal MEHRAM KHAN Versus
ASSISTANT VICE‑PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, HYDERABAD and 2 others
Appeal No. HYD‑319 of 1987, decided on 7th November 1987.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Grievance petition‑ Matter relating to guilt of workman in having slapped Accountant of respondent‑Bank, already closed by administering a warning to him‑ Action of establishment in reopening the matter by holding enquiry found to be illegal and unwarranted‑‑Warning being a punishment, workman could not be proceeded against and punished twice for the same offence‑‑Method and procedure adopted by Enquiry Officer in conducting alleged enquiry found to be contrary to established and approved procedure and hence not sustainable‑‑Establishment nowhere controverting contention of workman that he slapped the Accountant only on account of provocation‑‑Action of establishment to reopen the issue already decided and closed and to hold domestic enquiry resulting in dismissal of workman, held, was wrong, illegal and contrary to requirement of principles natural justice and same could not ,be upheld‑‑Conclusion of Labour Court found to be wrong, without any substance and without appreciation of evidence brought on record‑ Impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed‑‑Appellant directed to be re‑instated in service with 30% back benefits.
Bashir Awan for Appellant. Ishaq Abbasi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1987. DECISION
This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 8‑9‑1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to be a permanent employee of the respondent bank since 5‑10‑1966 and lastly, he was posted as Jamadar Messenger at Moro Branch of the respondent bank. The appellant claimed that on 11‑7‑1985, he was served with a false charge‑sheet alleging therein he had slapped one Mr. Kamaluddin and had created a scene of lawlessness. The appellant claimed that due to some dispute in between him and one Mr. Arbab Magsi, he made an application to the then Martial Law authorities which had developed enmity and the said Arbab Magsi conspired against him and managed to implicate him in a false case. According to the appellant he was pressurised to patch up the matter by admitting the charge, so, he submitted his reply and the matter was ended, vide letter, dated 20‑5‑1986. However, one Mr. Mahmood Khan was appointed as enquiry officer to hold an enquiry on the already patched up matter, followed by his dismissal from service, vide letter, dated 24‑11‑1986. Further, the claim of the appellant that the said Arbab Ali had manufactured a false case against him with the connivance of one Kamaluddin the Cashier and the enquiry officer who were both Memons by caste and they' were inclined to see his removal from service as being Jatoi, by caste. Being aggrieved with the action of the respondent bank, the appellant, after adopting the prescribed procedure, had submitted an application under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, before the learned Labour Court.
3. The respondent bank resisted the petition rebutting the allegations of the appellant. On merits, it was pleaded that the appellant had himself admitted his guilt, so he was rightly dismissed from service. Therefore, he could not maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ishaq Abbasi, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent bank and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset, I would observe here that if it be assumed that the appellant has committed any misconduct by slapping one Kamaluddin, which act on the part of the appellant was a natural provocation because the said Kamaluddin hid abused him in the names of mother‑sister, yet, the respondent bank, after considering his so‑called confession of the guilt, vide letter, dated 20‑5‑1986 had exonerated him from the charge in clear and specific words, as under:‑
"With reference to his application, dated 7‑5‑1986, Mr. Mehran Khan Jatoi, Jamadar Messenger is advised that P/L in special case has been sanctioned with effect from 14‑4‑1986 to 18‑4‑1986 with warning that such mistake should not be repeated in future. "
Therefore, I am of the view that after issuance of this letter by the respondent bank itself, the dispute, if any, was closed by administering a warning only and it was not supposed or justifiable for the bank to enquire into the already decided guilt by appointing an enquiry officer. This action of the respondent bank was quite illegal and unwarranted. The appellant cannot be punished twice for one and A the same offence. Warning is a punishment which is always entered into the Service Record of an employee. The learned Labour Court has itself came to the conclusion that the alleged enquiry was not conducted according to the established procedure and so such proceedings cannot be said proper and lawful. The method and procedure adopted by the said enquiry officer in conducting he alleged enquiry was quite contrary to the established and approved procedure, hence, it could not sustain. The respondent bank has nowhere seriously controverted the contention of the appellant that he slapped one Kamaluddin, only on account of natural provocation. There is no straight evidence on record to establish that the appellant had committed the alleged offence without any cogent reason. There is an admitted position that the appellant, under an intimidation of being excused was compelled to accept the allegation and manufactured charge. There is also an admitted position that he was exonerated from the said charge, vide letter, dated 20‑5‑1986. Thus, the action of the respondent bank to reopen the issue and to hold a domestic enquiry resulting into the dismissal of the appellant on an already decided and closed issue, was quite wrong, illegal and contrary to the requirement of Principle of natural justice, hence, the dismissal of the appellant cannot be upheld. The conclusion of the learned Labour Court in its impugned order is wrong and without any substance and without appreciation of the evidence and documents brought on record, hence, it is also set aside.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would set aside the impugned order and would allow the present appeal. The appellant is directed to be re‑instated in service with 30% back‑ benefits forthwith.
S.Q. /1055/Lb.S Appeal allowed.