1988 PLP 452 (PLC(CS))

Wasiullah Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th August, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellant Bank against an impugned order, dated 9‑3‑1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.VI. Hyderabad, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, directing his re‑instatement in service with full back benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent claimed to have been employed in the appellant Bank as Cashier and on a charge of un‑authorised absence, his services were dismissed on 17‑3‑1979, but subsequently, vide order of this Tribunal, dated 12‑10‑1980, he was reinstated. Again, on 24‑11‑1980 the respondent was issued a Notice in connection with his arrest by the Police and later on conviction by the Summary Military Court. The respondent claimed that he properly replied to this Notice on 11‑12‑1980, yet, the appellant Bank did not proceed further against the respondent and had only transferred him from Hyderabad to Umerkot Branch wherefrom he was alleged to have been absented with effect from 21‑9‑1982. Further, the case of the respondent was that without resorting to any legal formality, his services were dispensed with by letter, dated 1‑2‑1983, purported to be under Rule 15(110) of National Bank Staff Service Rules and he was also allowed one month's substantive pay in lieu of Notice. Being aggrieved of this action of the appellant Bank, the respondent submitted a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court .

3. The appellant Bank resisted the petition on the ground that the services of the respondent were lawfully and properly terminated under the provisions of National Bank of Pakistan Staff Rules 1973 E duly approved by the Federal Government, therefore, the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Employees) (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were not applicable to the case of the respondent, hence, he was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Partab Rai, the learned Advocate for the appellant Bank and Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent and have also perused the record and proceeding of the case. There is an admitted position that the services of the respondent were terminated without assigning any reason whatsoever, therefore, in view of the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 his termination was not sustainable. However, E Mr. Partab Rai, the learned Advocate for the appellant pleaded that the Staff Rules 1973 cannot be superseded by framing of the fresh Rules unless same are approved by the competent authority or earlier Rules of 1973 are repealed by such competent authority, therefore, l the learned Labour Court has erred in misapplication of the provisional of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Establishment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, to the instant case. He further submitted that the impugned order suffers from misappreciation and proper appreciation of proposition of Law. I see no force in any of the contentions of Mr. Partab Rai, the learned Advocate for the appellant Bank. The impugned order is absolutely well‑reasoned and needs no interference. I would, therefore, hold the same view what has been taken by the learned Labour Court in the present case. There is nothing wrong with the impugned order.

6. For the reasons stated by me above I would maintain the impugned order and would dismiss the present appeal. The respondent is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith, but only with a modification that he would be entitled to fifty per cent (50) back benefits to be paid to him immediately after due verification. The remaining amount of 50% of back benefits, already deposited by the appellant Bank in this Tribunal be also returned to them. A. E. /1092/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.