1983 PLP 891 (SCMR)

Respondent No. 2 : Ex parte. Date of hearing : 25th May, 1983. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This appeal by leave of this Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 1‑8‑1977 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, in limine. The appellant was appointed as a peon in the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan on 8‑5‑1974. On 25‑11‑1974, be was promoted as Head Security Guard and earned his annual increment vide office order dated 22‑5‑1975. However, on 5‑12‑1975, his services were terminated on payment of one month's salary. The reason for this abrupt change in the attitude of the respondent was that on verification of character and antecedents of the appellant, the Superintendent of Police had reported that he had been chal laned on 9‑5‑1962 under section 379, P. P. C. The appellant challenged the order of his termination before the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, which accepted his application on 22‑3‑1976 and directed his re‑instatement with full back benefits. We are informed that he was, accordingly, re‑instated and full back benefits were also paid to him. However, on appeal preferred by the respondent‑Bank, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on 5‑6‑1976 set aside the order of the Punjab Labour Court No. 2 With the result that the services of the appellant` again stood terminated. This order was challenged by the appellant by filing a writ Petition (W. P. No. 1840 of 1976) but the same was dismissed in limine on 1‑2‑1977. Leave to appeal having been granted by this Court against the said judg ment hence this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant, inter aria, submitted that although the appellant was challaned under section 379, P. P. C. on 9‑5‑1962, when he was a student of Class VII he was honourably acquitted in the said case. Moreover, the appellant having become a confirmed employee on the expiry of one year's service with the respondent‑Bank his services could not be termina ted simply by giving him one month's notice. Hence the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the High Court bad erred in law in setting aside the judgment of the Punjab Labour Court re‑instating him in service. In reply, Raja Muhammad Akram, after taking instructions from the respondent‑Bank, informed us that although be can justify the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and that of the High Court but that respondent Bank on humanitarian considerations was prepared to take back the appellant into service provided he did not insist on the back benefits. We consider that this is a very fair offer. It has been agreed before u that the appellant will be treated as having been in service of the Ban throughout, though he will not be paid the back benefits from 5‑6..1976 up t the date when he re‑joins the service of the Bank. However, he will granted seniority on the basis of having been throughout in service i.e. right from the date of his initial appointment and will also be allowed notional promotions on the same basis so that the increments falling due as from 5‑&1976 to the date of his rejoining service shall be allowed to him. The appellant has assured us that he will conduct himself as a royal and discip lined employee of the respondent‑Bank. In view of the above settlement arrived at between the parties, this appeal shall stand disposed of in the terms indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M. Z. M. Order accordingly.