Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 1835 1989 SLD 1835 1989 PLC 644
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. GA-152 of 1985, decided on 25th January, 1989.
. SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Mian Abdul Rashid for Appellant. M. Zaman Oureshi for
Respondent.

HABIB BANK LTD.

VS

JAVED IQBAL

Law:

Section:

Industrial dispute-- --- Misconduct--Bank employee--Every act amounting to misconduct cannot be included in Rules because it cannot be known as to what illegal acts an employee might commit--C.D.R. required to be signed by an Officer--Cashier signing CDR unauthorisedly without scoring off printed word "Officer"--Such act, held, amounted to misconduct and non-causing of any financial loss not relevant so as to constitute an act of misconduct--Wage Commission Award, para. 258(2). (b) Industrial dispute-- --- Domestic enquiry--Admission of allegation made in reply to charge-sheet-­Proving such allegation would not be necessary in circumstances. (c) Habib Bank (Staff) Service Rules-- --- Rr. 6(f)(d) & 37--Dismissal from service--Cashier falling in category II-­Authority to dismiss employees of category 11 vesting in Senior Executive Vice-President Administration Head Office--Dismissal Order signed by Executive Vice-President, was without lawful authority hence not maintainable. JUDGMENT The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 14-2-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7. Gujranwala, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. 2. The appeal was previously decided but as at that time the decision of the High Court was in the field to the effect that the persons removed from service were no longer workmen, the petition therefore, was ordered to be returned to the respondent. After the Supreme Court held that the Labour Courts had jurisdiction, the respondent went in writ petition to the High Court, wherefrom the appeal has been remanded."` 3. The allegation, for which the respondent was removed from service, was that he had put his own signatures on the CDRs without any authority. Learned counsel for the respondent has tried to argue that the respondent did not violate any provision of paragraph 258(2) of the Wage Commission Award, therefore, he by putting his signatures on the CDRs did not commit any misconduct. The respondent had admitted his signatures on the CDRs but the plea taken by him was that he did so on the asking of the Manager who had also signed it. He also…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492