1990 PLP 1152 (SCMR)

terminated with immediate effect on 21‑1‑1981 under rule 15(1) of the Staff ,, Service Rules 1980. This order was ultimately challenged through a grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court No.9 which ordered his reinstatement with back benefits on 19‑2‑1984. The appeal filed by the Bank before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal was rejected and the petitioner‑Bank then moved the High Court by a writ petition. The main ground urged before the High Court was that the services of the respondent were terminated under rule 15(1) of the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Rules 1980. This was, therefore, a case of termination simpliciter and not a punishment warranting interference by the Labour Court under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relation Ordinance. This contention was rejected by the High Court observing that the respondent was originally served with a charge‑sheet for misconduct based on many irregularities op his part. Subsequently, he was let off so far as the charge‑sheet was concerned but sometime later the order regarding his termination under rule 15(1) of the Staff Service Rules was made. It was further observed that under rule 37 of the Staff Service Rules, termination was one of the penalties and that in fact the services of the respondent were terminated as a punishment by resorting to powers under rule 15(1) of the Staff Service Rules, 1980. It was because the allegations against him could not be proved that powers under rule 15(1) of the said rules appear to have been resorted to. Accordingly the rule laid down in Osman Ghani v. Federal Service Tribunal and another 1986 S C M R 1875 was attracted. On this view of the matter, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rahman Farrukh in support of this petition has relied on this Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No.318 of 1988 National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others decided on 5‑2‑1989, particularly the following part thereof:- "The availability of two such concurrent powers and the exercise of one to the exclusion of other was considered in a number of cases by this Court starting with Abdul Karim v. The West Pakistan Province P L D 1956 S C 298 and coming down up to Ehsan Elahi v. WAPDA 1988 S C M R 1247 and WAPDA through its Chairman v. Shujaat Ali Baghdadi P L D 1988 S C

622. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, referred to the decision in the case of Usman Ghani v. Federal Service Tribunal 1986 S C M R 1875 where an assumption of mala fides in invoking of such a power was raised on the facts of the case. It was not the exercise of the power but the manner and the reason for its exercise which vitiated the action taken in that case. (underlining is ours). It is submitted that the manner in which the power was exercised in this case was not mala fide. Leave is granted to consider whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the rule laid down by this Court in Osman Ghani v. Federal Service Tribunal and another 1986 S C M R 1875 or that laid down in National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others Civil Appeal No.318 of 1988 is attracted. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record, with liberty to the parties to add further documents if any and put up for hearing at an early date. The respondent Muhammad Rafique Wattoo, who has since been taken back in service shall continue to remain in service, but will not pay the back benefits, till the final disposal of the appeal. A.A./N‑253/S Leave granted.