1978 PLC 151 (PLP)

This judgment shall dispose of aforementioned three appeals involving common questions of law and fact, filed by A. D. B. of Pakistan against the three respondents whose particulars have been given above. Shaukat Ali, Imran and Ishtiaque Ahmed Khan were employed as Sub Accountants in the appellant's Bank while Riaz Ahmed was employed as Investigation Officer Services of Riaz Ahmed were terminated w. e. f. 22nd January 1975. Services of Saukat Ali and Imran were terminated on 20th January 1975 and those of Ishtiaque Ahmed Khan were terminated on 27th January 1975. Services of all the three respondents were terminated by the Joint Director (Regional Manager), Lahore in purported exercise of his powers vesting in him under Regulation 13 (1) of the A. D. B. (Staff) Service Regulations, 1961. The orders of termination in all the three cases are identical and read as under: "In view of the fact that the operation and the image of the bank need to be improved radically; the bank has assessed the ability of bank Designation of the respondent concerned) to render further service and it has been decided that his further employment in the service of the bank will not be conducive to any tempramental in the functioning of the bank his over services have therefore been terminated with immediate effect under Regulation 13 (1) of the A. D. B. P. (Staff) Service Regulations, by the undersigned as competent authority under Regulation 7 and Appendix 1 of the Regulations. He will be paid one, month's pay in lieu of notice. He may, if he so desires, make an application for review to the under signed under Regulation 13 (3) of the A. D. B. P. (Staff Services) Regulations within a month of the receipt of this Memorandum"

2. The respondents filed review petitions. Two of respondents namely Ishtiaque Ahmed Khan and Shaukat Ali Imran also served grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Riaz Ahmed respondent however did not serve any grievance no6x. He simply filed the review petition. Needless to add that all the respondents filed review petitions within the prescribed time.

3. Without awaiting the result of review petition the respondents filed separate applications against the appellant under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before Junior Labour Court No. 1, Lahore seeking their re3pective re-instatement with back benefits.

4. The applications ref the respondent were vehemently opposed by the appellant who pleaded inter alia that relationship of master and servant existed between the parties and there ore applications by the respondents under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, before the Junior Labour Court, a Court of limited jurisdictions, were not competent and that the grievance procedure was not duly observed and further that the services of the respondent were rightly terminated under Regulation 13 (1).

5. The learned Lower Court after hearing the parties. by its detailed order dated 24th July 1975 disposed of three cases by the same order. The said learned Court concluded that filing of review petitions by the respondents, amounted to fulfilment of grievance procedure. Regulation 3(1) contemplated termination simpliciter. In the under-consideration cases, the respondents were terminated after having been branded as in efficient and incorrigible. 7 heir services could be terminated under Regulation 95 (3), A which contemplated holding of enquiry and affording of opportunity to she Cause. Consequently all the respondents were directed to be re-instated with back benefits.

6. The aforesaid order of the learned Lower Court has been impugned through the under-consideration appeal.

7. The same arguments have peen addressed with full force before this Court. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that the constitutional safeguards available to the generality of Civil Service against arbitrary removal from service were not available to the servants of statutory corpora tions. While advancing this argument reliance has been placed on R. T. H. Janjooa v. National Shipping Corporation (1). I am afraid this argument has no force because in the under-consideration case no constitutional safeguard is being sought by the respondents. They have filed applications under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The said provisions enable workmen to seek redress in respect of the rights guaranteed or secured to them by or under any law, award or settlement. In the circumstances of the case no right based on award or settlement is sought to be enforced but it has been alleged by the respondents that right its available to them under ADBP (Staff) Service Regulations, 1961 have been jeopardized. Unquestionably ADPB (Staff) Service Relations, 1961 are "Law" within the meaning of section 25-A of tale Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, inasmuch as these Regulations have been framed under section 39 of the Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance, 1961 and are therefore statutory Regulations. It is, therefore concluded that applications b the respondents under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. 1969 are competent.

8. As regards the plea that the grievance procedure has not been observed, the learned Lower Court has rightly concluded that submission of (1) P L D 1974 S C 146 review petitions by the respondent within the prescribed period of limitation fulfil the requirement of the grievance procedure as hag been held in 197610 PLC232.

9. As a matter of fact the main point for consideration in this case is as to whether the terminations of the respondents are terminations simplicites as envisaged in Regulatian 13 (1) or their terminations are with blemish D for which enquiry and show-cause notice was necessary. In Muhammad Siddique Jared Choudhry v. Province of West Pakistan ((1) P L D 1974 S C 393), it was observed as under: "If the services of a probationer is terminated on the ground of unsatis factory work that will not amount to dismissal or removal from service such termination will be in terms of contract or Rules made by the Government but if the services of a probationer is terminated on the ground of misconduct that will amount to removal or dismissal. It will be a stigma in his favour."

10. The record shows that there were allegations against the appellant officers of corruption. "Held in these circumstances the order terminating their services amounted to removal and dismissal and they were entitled to a show-cause notice." Similarly in Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills Limited v. Muhammad Abdul Ghana and another (P L D 1975 Kar. 342) it was held by the Sind & Baluchistan high Court that if the order of termination of services carried a stigma it contained all characteristics of dismissal from service such termination order if it is only a guise and cloak to avoid legal formalities of enquiry amounted to colourful exercise of power.

11. In the circumstances of the under-consideration case while terminating the respondentv it has been clearly provided that in the order of termination that the ability of the petitioner had gone down to a level where their further retention in service was not desirable. It had also been provided in the order that the ability of the respondent has been assessed and it has been decided that their further employment in the service will not be conducive to the functioning of the bank. This clearly means that the respondents have been branded to be inefficient. This is clearly a stigma and therefore this cannot be termed as termination simplicter. If actually the respondents have been assessed to be inefficient and their further retention in service was not conducive to the functtooing of the bank proper course, was to charge-sheet them accordingly and to hold an enquiry in the matter in accordance the procedure laid down in Regulation 95 (3) of ADPB (Staff) Service Regulations, 1961.

12. In the light of what has been said above it is concluded that termination of the respondent have been ordered unlawfully. In this view of the matter we find no merits in their appeals, which are accordingly dismissed while the impugned order is upheld.