2009 PLP 27 (PLC)

HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.

This is a case of real hardship, the appellant has become a mental case practically and that too due to technicalities and non-granting him a relief, which otherwise was extended to the appellant by way of converting his dismissal into the Compulsory Retirement by the Federal Service Tribunal.

2. The conduct of the employer is evident from the bare facts that he kept the appellant into indecent litigation for a number of years only on flimsy grounds and hyper-technicalities.

3. The appellant could only get a relief from his employer by way of certain pensionary benefits against a period of 14 years of service, which he rendered with the State Bank and nothing more.

4. Some facts are important to be noted, the appellant was vault peon in the State Bank of Pakistan, was charged sheeted on 24-6-1996 and finally was dismissed on 13-8-1996. He served a grievance notice and then filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 in October, 1996. During the pendency of the petition before the learned Labour Court section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act was introduced and the grievance petition was returned to the petitioner on 22-9-1999, on the objections of the respondent-Bank.

5. On 11-10-1997 the appellant approached Federal Service Tribunal through Appeal No.896-L of 1997. The appeal was dismissed by the Federal Service Tribunal on 24-1-1998 on the point of maintainability, the appellant assailed the order of the Federal Service Tribunal before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan through C.P. No.173 of 1999, where the petition was. heard and with the consent of the parties the same was allowed and the case was remanded to the Federal Service Tribunal for a decision on merits vide judgment of he apex Court, dated 27-9-2004.

6. It is interesting to note that the appellant could get relief only to the extent of conversion of his penalty of dismissal into compulsory retirement by the Federal Service Tribunal through judgment dated 11-7-2005 but even then the respondent-Bank could not accept the verdict of Federal Service Tribunal and moved before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan through C.P.L.A. No.2360 of 2005.

7. During the pendency of C.P.L.A. before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan a judgment reported as Mubeen-ul-Islam v. Government was announced and the respondent-Bank took the plea of that case and the C.P.L.A. was disposed of through order dated 8-8-2006.

8. The poor appellant was not benefited of the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which was in field and particularly when the Bank itself got the disposal of its C.P.L.A. from the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, resulting into the appellant's hanging in the air, the appellant tried its level best for pensionary benefits but with no result and then he rushed to the Labour Court.

9. There is another aspect of the impugned controversy that another judgment titled as Muhammad Idrees v. Government 2007 PLC (C.S.) 1331 was passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, wherein certain parameters were laid down for the implementation of judgment of Mubeen-ul-Islam and according to Muhammad Idrees's case the employees of those statutory bodies having statutory rules shall have to remain amenable to the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal. In another case of National Bank of Pakistan v. Abdul Qadir (C.P. No.552 of 2007 decided on 13-7-2007) where it was contended on behalf of National Bank that their rules are non-statutory so there employees cannot be amenable to the writ/Federal Service Tribunal but it was held by the apex Court in a case titled National Bank of Pakistan v. Abdul Qadir (C.P. No.552 of 2007 decided on 13-7-2007) that firstly the employees of the National Bank of Pakistan were regulated under the statutory rules and later on these statutory rules were converted into non-statutory, this conversion cannot hold the field because the statutory rules cannot become non-statutory through a resolution of Directors of Banks etc., meaning thereby that the earlier rules of National Bank of Pakistan, which were admittedly statutory shall remain in field. 10 Thus on the same analogy it is held that the State Bank of Pakistan's rules/regulation, which were admittedly statutory could not be treated as non-statutory according to the whims and moods of the Banks Authorities until and unless conversion of the same be in line with law and the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan supra so in the present case whatever the situation of the appellant, who was an employee of State-Bank of Pakistan remained amenable to the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal even after the judgment in the case of Muhammad Mubeen-ul-Islam v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602 particularly in the light of judgment of Muhammad Idrees's case. In the attending circumstances, the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby the penalty of dismissal was converted into compulsory retirement shall hold the filed and it is obligatory on the Bank Authorities to implement the same in letter and spirit.

11. At present there may be an objection that how in the labour appeal, which is against the judgment of Labour Court this direction could be issued to the State Bank, suffice it to say that the High Court has ample powers to issue a direction to a "person" as defined under Article 199 and admittedly State Bank of Pakistan falls within the definition of that "person" and in that respect, reliance can safely be made on a recent judgment reported as Secretary Revenue v. Muhammad Saleem 2008 SCMR 948.

12. Accordingly the State Bank of Pakistan is directed to grant pensionary benefits to the appellant within a period of one month positively by implementing the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, the result whereof be conveyed to the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court. H.B.T./M-287/L Order accordingly.