1999S21 (PLP)

NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.

This petition has been filed by Ms. Zeba Mumtaz seeking leave against the impugned judgment dated 10-11-1998 of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby her appeal against the termination of her services by the respondent-First Women Bank Limited has been dismissed. We have heard at length the arguments of Mr. Fazle Ghani Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, and have referred to the relevant record.

2. Services of the petitioner, who was working as Executive Vice-President of the respondent Bank were terminated by Letter dated 1-8-1997 of the respondent Bank which reads as follows:- "The Board of Directors of F.W.B.L. in its 43rd meeting held on 30-7-1997 have decided that your services are no more required to the bank. In view of the above your services are being terminated with immediate effect i.e. 1st August, 1997, afternoon. In lieu of notice period you will be paid three months' salary. You may collect your dues from the accounts department of the bank after settling all your dues and liabilities. You are also requested to return the bank vehicle and all files and paper of the bank which are in your custody. " After seeking a review of the order of termination on which there was no response, petitioner filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment. In the impugned judgment the case of the petitioner has been narrated as under:- "Case of the appellant briefly is that before joining the respondent-bank in 1990, as Vice-President, on deputation from Pakistan Banking Council she had been working in the Citi Bank for 11 years. After joining the respondent-Bank on deputation, she was permanently absorbed on the strength of this Bank in the year 1991. In due course of time she was promoted as Executive Vice-President. She served as such till the impugned order dated 1-8-1997, when her services were terminated. From this the learned counsel for the appellant argued that she has vast banking experience and she had been condemned unheard, the Bank had violated the principle of natural justice thus the order of her termination should be set- aside and she be reinstated. In the grounds of appeal, it has been prayed that this Tribunal should hold the impugned order arbitrary, mala fide and without lawful authority. " The respondent Bank has its own service rules but admittedly the same are not statutory rules and, in the circumstances, the Tribunal, accepting the plea on behalf of the respondent Bank took the view that the relationship between the respondent Bank and the petitioner was of master and servant. The Tribunal also referred to rule 11 of the Service Rules of the respondent Bank which is as follows:- "

11. Termination of services.--(1) Services of an employee in Category I may be terminated by the competent authority on 3 months' notice or on payment of a sum equal to her substantive pay for three months in lieu thereof: Provided that the competent authority may allow, at its sole discretion, all or any of the benefits ordinarily admissible on retirement from service to an employee in Category I whose services have been terminated under this sub-rule. " The Tribunal was of the view that a plain reading of the letter of termination shows that it was a termination simpliciter. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal observing as follows:- "In view of the above, it is held that the appeal, filed by the appellant before this Tribunal, seeking reinstatement as Executive Vice-President in the respondent-Bank, is incompetent under the law as this Tribunal being a creation of statute cannot go beyond the codified law, meaning thereby that in the absence of statutory rules, the law declared does not permit reinstatement of the appellant and under the statutory law this Tribunal cannot award any damages. The other two objections, discussed above, also support the plea of the respondent Bank that the appeal has no merit and not is competent under the law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs who be informed. ".

3. The Staff Service Rules of the respondent-Bank not being statutory rules and there being no other statutory instrument shown to us according to which respondent Bank could not terminate the services in accordance with its own staff service rules and order of termination having been passed in accordance with the applicable rule of the Staff Service Rules of the respondent Bank, the Federal Service Tribunal came to the right conclusion in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. It may be observed here that this Court has consistently held that in the absence of any statutory rules, relationship between the employer and an employee of a corporation, where protection cannot be sought under the Labour Laws or any statutory instrument, is that of master and servant. In this regard, in the case of Anisa Refiman v. P.I.A.C. 1994 SCMR 2232 reference was made to the following judgments:- (i) Shahid Khalil v. P.I.A.C. 1971 SCMR 568; (ii) A. George v. P.I.A.C. PLD 1971 Lah. 784; (iii) Muhammad Yousuf Shah v. P.I.A.C. PLD 1981 SC 224; (iv) Raziuddin v. Chairman, P.I.A.C. PLD 1992 SC 531; (v) Lt.-Col. Shujauddin Ahmed v. Oil and Gas Development Corporation 1971 SCMR 566; (vi) Chairman of East Pakistan Development Corporation v. Rustam Ali PLD 1966 SC, 848; (vii) Lahore Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Pir Saifullah Shah PLD 1959 SC 210; (viii) Zainul Abedin v. Multan Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. PLD 1966 SC 445; (ix) R.T.H. Janjua v. National Shipping Corporation PLD 1974 SC 146; (x) Evacuee Trust Property Board v. Muhammad Nawaz 1983 SCMR 1275; (xi) Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan PLD 1984 SC 194; (xii) Principal, Cadet College, Kohat v. Muhammad Shoab Qureshi PLD 1984 SC 170; (xiii) Nisar Ahmed v. The Director, Chiltan Ghee Mill 1987 SCMR 1836; (xiv) National Bank of Pakistan v. Manzoorul Hassan 1989 SCMR 832; (xv) Sindh Road Transport Corporation v. Muhammad Ali G. Khokhar.1990 SCMR 1404; (xvi) K.D.A. v. Wali Ahmed Khan 1991 SCMR 2434; (xvii) Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Bank 1992 SCMR 1112; (xviii) Agricultural Development Bank v. Muhammad Sharif 1988 SCMR 597.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not controvert the above legal position but referred to the following judgments in support of the proposition that petitioner could claim reinstatement on the ground that the order of termination was mala.fide:- (a) WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi 1986 SCMR 18; (b) Karachi Development Authority v. Wali Ahmed Khan 1991 SCMR 2434; (c) Chairman, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation v. Nasir Ahmad 1995 SCMR 1593; (d) Aftab Ahmed v. K.E.S.C. 1999 SCMR

197. We have gone through the aforesaid judgments and we find that all. of them are clearly distinguishable and do not advance the case of the petitioner that she- could claim reinstatement in service. Learned counsel also referred- to a decision of the Full Bench of the Federal Shariat Court dated 18-11-1993 in Shairat Petition No.2-K of 1990 Muhammad Sharif v. Federal Government and Pakistan National Shipping Corporation). We find that the said judgment is not relevant to the point in issue in this case. '

5. Respondent Bank may have had certain grievances against the petitioner but then a decision was taken to terminate the services of the petitioner under the said rule 11 of the Staff Service Rules of the Bank and three months' pay was also received by the petitioner from the respondent-Bank in lieu of three months' notice under the said rule. The finding of the Tribunal that in the circumstances, the order terminating the services of the petitioner was a termination simpliciter does not call for interference.

6. As a result, we find no merit in this. petition which is dismissed and leave is refused. M.B.A./Z-32/S Petition dismissed.