Bank employees rights in Pakistan | labour law cases in Pakistan |
 |
| Labour court case laws |
اپیل فائل کی گئی لیڈی کی طرف سےجو کے الائیڈ بینک میں سیکنڈ گریڈ کی أفیسر تھی۔ جو کہ پہلے گریڈ تھری کی افسر تھی ترقی پا کر گریڈ سیکنڈ میں ھوئی۔ جس کے بعد پوسٹنگ نئی جگہ ھوئی اور وہاں پر اس پر غبن کا الزام لگا اور نوکری سے فارغ کر دیا۔
جس کے بعد لیڈی نے کیس فائل کیا لیبر کورٹ میں جس میں کورٹ نے قرار دیا کے بے ایمانی یا غبن ثابت نہیں ہوا ہاں کام میں غفلت ثابت ھوئی ھے۔ جس کی سزا کورٹ نے دی۔
ich vide judgment, dated 19.06.2010, re-instated her in
the Respondent Bank’s service albeit with a lower Grade, and declined to
award her any back benefits
بحال کر دیا نچلے گریڈ پر بیک بینیفٹ دینے سے انکار کر دیا۔ اس فیصلے کے خلاف دونوں پارٹیز نے اپیل فائیل کر دی۔
اپیلٹ ٹربیونل نے دونوں پارٹییز کی اپیل خارج کر دیاور اپیلٹ ٹربیونل نے لیبر ٹربیونل کا فیصلہ برقرار رکھا۔
جس کے بعد دونوں پارٹییز نے ھائی کورٹ میں رٹ فائل کر دی ۔
ھائی کورٹ نے کہا کے لیڈی نے اٹھائیس سال اچھی سروس کی لہزا سزا کو ختم کر جبری ریٹائرمنٹ میں تبدیل کر دیا۔
جس کے بعد دونوں پارٹیز نے سپریم کورٹ میں اپیل کر دی۔
سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کے ہائی کورٹ اٹھائس سال کی سروس مانی پھر جو سزادی وہ نہ مناسب ھے۔
سزا کی تھیوریز کو ڈسکس کیا۔ اور سزاسنائی۔
In the light of the above, we while partially allowing this
appeal convert the punishment of compulsory retirement of the
appellant to that of stoppage of five years increments following
his reinstatement in service. However, no back benefits are
granted to the appellant
سپریم کورٹ نے بحالی کے بعد پانچ سال کی انکریمنٹ روک دی۔اور بیک بینیفٹ نہیں دیے۔
Case law on Bank employees reinstatement
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah
Mr. Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi
Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Civil Appeals No.836-L, 837-L/2013
Against the judgment dated 16.1.2013
passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in
W.Ps. No. 25273 & 23756 of 2011
Mst. Shahida Siddiqa
Allied Bank Limited through its President, etc
(In CA 836-L/13)
(In CA 837-L/13)
…Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Allied Bank Limited through its President, etc
Mst. Shahida Siddiqa
(In CA 836-L/13)
(In CA 837-L/13)
…Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s):
In Person
(in CA 836-L/2013)
Mr. Farooq Zaman Qureshi, ASC
Thr: video link from Lahore
(in CA 837-L/2013
For the Respondent(s):
Mr. Farooq Zaman Qureshi, ASC
Thr: video link from Lahore
(in CA 836-L /2013)
In person
(in CA 837-L/2013)
Date of Hearing:
14.11.2023
O R D E R
Irfan Saadat Khan, J.- C.A. No.836-L/2013: This Appeal, with leave of
the Court granted vide order dated 06.08.2013, has been filed by the
Mst. Shahida Siddiqa (“Appellant”), against the judgement of the Lahore
High Court, Lahore, dated 16.01.2013, (“Impugned Judgement”),
whereby the judgments of both the Courts below, the Punjab Labour
Appellate Tribunal (“Appellate Tribunal”), dated 19.09.2011, and the
Punjab Labour Court, Faisalabad (“Labour Court”), dated 19.06.2010,
were modified by the learned Single Judge of the High Court with the
observation that the Appellant shall retire from the service of Allied Bank
Civil Appeals No.836-L, 837-L/2013
2
Limited, (“Respondent Bank”), compulsorily with effect from the date of
her dismissal.
2.
Briefly, the facts necessary to decide the matter before us are that
the Appellant joined the Respondent Bank as Assistant in the year 1979.
She was promoted as Officer Grade-III in 1986 and Officer Grade-II in
1995. On 11.04.2007, the Appellant was transferred to the Allied Bank
Samundri Road Branch, Faisalabad (“Branch”). It was at this Branch of
the Respondent Bank, where she was suspended and charge sheeted, on
19.10.2007, with the allegation of being privy to a fraud. Subsequently,
Inquiry Proceedings were initiated against her and the Inquiry Officer,
vide report dated 25.01.2008, concluded that the charges against the
Appellant stood partially proved. Consequently, vide letter dated
07.05.2008, the Respondent Bank imposed a major penalty on the
Appellant and dismissed her from service.
3.
Being aggrieved the Appellant filed a grievance petition before the
Labour Court, which vide judgment, dated 19.06.2010, re-instated her in
the Respondent Bank’s service albeit with a lower Grade, and declined to
award her any back benefits. Being dissatisfied with the Order, both the
Appellant and the Respondent Bank filed Appeals before the Appellate
Tribunal, which vide its consolidated judgment, dated 19.09.2011,
dismissed both the appeals and upheld the Order of the Labour Court.
Subsequently, both the Appellant and the Respondent Bank filed Writ
Petitions before the Lahore High Court, which were disposed of in the
following terms:
“In the instant
case though the connivance of the
accused/petitioner with the main accused/Shaukat Naeem
Warraich in the commission of the fraud/misappropriation is not
proved from the evidence available on the record, but her failure to
discharge her duties diligently is proved from the documentary
evidence brought on the record and in view of the settled principle
of law that a ‘man can tell a lie but a document not’, she has
rightly been held ‘negligent’. However, keeping in view her length
of service, spreading over 28 years, and unblemished past career,
her dismissal from service would be a harsh punishment.
Similarly, re-instatement into service though with reduction of
Grade would also not be justified in the facts and circumstances
il Appeals No.836-L, 837-L/2013
3
of the case as re-instatement of the petitioner would amount to
force the employer to take back a “negligent” employee in its
institution, which has already sustained heavy loss at the hands
of the said employee. So in my view compulsory retirement of the
petitioner in the given circumstances would foster the interest of
justice.”
4.
The main allegation for imposing a major penalty on the Appellant
and her subsequent dismissal from service was that she had been
negligent in performing her duties by disclosing the secret code to her
former Bank Manager, namely Shoukat Naeem Warraich, who defrauded
the Bank and misappropriated hefty amounts, in his capacity as the
Manager of the Branch. During the Inquiry Proceedings, the Appellant
refuted all the charges leveled upon her. The Labour Court after
examining all of those aspects concluded, through Order dated
19.06.2010, that there was no direct allegation against her with regard to
embezzlement, preparation of any fabricated instrument, and using the
same for her own benefit. However, the Court opined that she had been
negligent and careless in performing her duty and thus reinstated her
without back benefits, in a lower grade i.e. Grade-III rather than GradeII. The aforementioned Order was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal vide
Order dated 19.2.2011. In the Petitions filed by the present Appellant
and the present Respondent Bank before the Lahore High Court, Lahore,
the High Court, vide Impugned Judgement dated 16.01.2013, observed
that the Appellant’s negligence demanded that she be compulsory retired
instead of being re-instated.
5.
We have heard the Appellant, who is appearing in-person, and the
learned counsel for the Respondent Bank and have perused the record
with their assistance. Upon careful consideration of the matter, we have
found that the Impugned Judgement of the High Court is contrary to the
principles of justice. Perusal of the Impugned Judgement of the High
Court reveals that it appears to be self-contradictory as the High Court
has first observed that the Appellant has an unblemished past career,
Civil Appeals No.836-L, 837-L/2013
4
spanning over 28 years, and that her dismissal from service would be a
harsh punishment; and yet, the High Court found it appropriate to then
observe that the Appellant be compulsory retired from service. In our
view these observations of the High Court in fact defeat the ends of
justice rather than fostering the same, as awarding compulsory
retirement would be equivalent to meting out harsh treatment to her.
6.
It is a settled proposition of law that a penalty should be
proportionate to the guilt. The modern notion of proportionality requires
that the punishment ought to reflect the degree of moral culpability
associated with the offence for which it is imposed.1 Given the fact that
the Labour Court and the Appellate Tribunal found the Appellant
negligent of not properly keeping the secret code but did not see any
merit in the allegations of embezzlement, the imposition of a major
penalty of compulsory retirement from service would definitely be harsh.
7.
In Saifullah 2 this Court has observed:
“6.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and
have also perused the available record as well as the judgment
of the Tribunal. Admittedly there is no allegation against the
appellant of having embezzled any amount and on the
contrary, there is admission on the part of his co-accused
Muhammad Tariq regarding the said embezzled amount which
he had admitted and promised to return in part payments on
two different dates. In the given circumstances and in the
absence of any substantial and cogent evidence placing the
appellant to be in collusion with Muhammad Tariq co-accused
and particularly when there is an admission of the said guilt
on his part alone, would not be fair and justifiable. At the most
the failure of the appellant to get signatures in hand to hand
cash book could have been considered to be a lapse on his part
which could not entail the major penalty of removal from
service resulting in his compulsory retirement rather fall
within the parameter of inefficiency on the part of the
appellant. Punishment should always commensurate with the
guilt proved. We have observed that in the circumstances, case
against the appellant cannot be considered to be of fraud,
forgery or embezzlement rather at the most it can be
considered to be that of inefficiency.
7.
In the light of the above, we while partially allowing this
appeal convert the punishment of compulsory retirement of the
appellant to that of stoppage of five years increments following
his reinstatement in service. However, no back benefits are
granted to the appellant.”
1 Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services v. Nadeem Raza (2023 SCMR 803)
2 Saifullah v. Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services (2016 SCMR 1430)
Civil Appeals No.836-L, 837-L/2013
5
8.
In the decision rendered in Auditor-General of Pakistan 3 this Court
held:
“The element of bad faith and willfulness may bring an act of
negligence within the purview of misconduct but lack of proper
care and vigilance may not always be willful to make it a case
of grave negligence inviting service punishment. The
philosophy of punishment is based on the concept of
retribution, which may be either through the method of
deterrence or reformation. The purpose of deterrent
punishment is not only to maintain balance with the gravity of
wrong done by a person but also to make an example for
others as a preventive measure for reformation of the society,
whereas the concept of minor punishment in the law is to
make an attempt to reform the individual wrong doer. In
service matters, the extreme penalty for minor acts depriving a
person from right of earning would definitely defeat the
reformatory concept of punishment in administration of
justice. In view thereof, we would not take any exception to the
view of the matter taken by the Tribunal.”
9.
We, therefore, under the circumstances, partly allow the Appeal
filed by the Appellant by setting aside the Impugned Judgement of the
High Court dated 16.01.2013, and up hold those of the Labour Court
and Appellate Tribunal to the extent of the demotion to a lower grade;
with the modification that the Appellant will be entitled to all back
benefits as available to a Grade-III Officer, from the date of her dismissal
to the date of her retirement. She will also be entitled to all the
pensionary benefits as available to the said Grade Officer.
10.
C. A. No.837-L/2013: Since, we have partly allowed the present
Appeal, No. 836-L/2013, this Appeal filed by the Respondent Bank,
stands dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost.
ISLAMABAD
14th Nov., 2023
Arshed/Ahsan “Approved for reporting”
Judge
Judge
Judge
3 Auditor-General of Pakistan v. Muhammad Ali (2006 SCMR 63)
Comments
Post a Comment