1993 PLP 791 (PLC(CS))

2. In the written reply riled by the present appellant it was said that the job held by the petitioner was of supervisory nature and that Standing Orders Ordinance otherwise too, was not applicable as the respondent Bank was a statutory Corporation with its own Statutory Rules of Service. It was further urged that the order was strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Development Bank (Staff Services) Regulations, 1961 under which services of an employee were regulated on the terms and conditions of the appointment letter. It went on to say that the appointment of the petitioner was subject to satisfactory Police Report regarding his character and antecedents and that went against him. Otherwise too, the termination was in pursuance of the terms and conditions of the appointment letter agreed upon by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner was his own witness and one S. Jaffer Abbas, an Officer Incharge A.D.B.P. of the Regional Office, Khairpur appeared on behalf of the respondent.

4. The learned Labour Court found that the petitioner was a workman. It was further held that though the A.D.B.P. (Staff Services) Regulations, 1961 was statutory and the Rules framed thereunder were Statutory Rules, however, as the petitioner was a workman therefore he could come under the I.R.O. It was further found that the termination of service was not simpliciter, but on account of certain allegations based on the Police Report which however was different from the one received lately. The termination of service was in colourable exercise of their power, and therefore, stood vitiated. It, therefore, allowed the grievance petition with back benefits. It is this order which has been challenged before me.

5. Before adverting to the contentions raised by Mr. Shafi Muhammad it would be in the fitness of things to refer to certain admissions made by the respondent himself. He has admitted that "one of the conditions of my appointment was that my antecedents and character would be verified from the Police and my appointment would be confirmed on verifying the same as satisfactory". In reply to a question he added "it is correct that my appointment letter was not confirmed and my termination from service was ordered on account of Police Report which was against me". Denying that he was a member of Al‑Zulfiqar Organisation, he admitted that Lala Asad was his brother and he was killed in a police encounter. He added that personally he did not involve himself in any political activity. There is no gainsaying the fact that the appellant Bank is a Statutory Corporation and even the Rules framed thereunder are statutory in nature. The Regulation 13 reads as under:‑‑ "

13. Termination of service.‑‑‑(1) The Bank may dispense with the services of an employee other than an employee on probation or a temporary employee, by giving 3 months' previous notice in writing or 3 months of 30 days substantive pay in lieu thereof, to an employee in Class I or Class II and one month of 30 days' previous notice or 30 days' substantive pay in lieu thereof to an employee in Class III and Class IV. In the case of a temporary employee of any class, such notice or pay in lieu shall be for a period of one month of 30 days. The power to terminate the service of an employee shall be exercised by the competent authority. Such termination of service of an employee is in the absolute discretion of the Bank and it shall not be necessary to assign any reason for the termination and the employee shall not be entitled to any form of compensation for termination of service. (2) The Bank reserves the right of dismissing an employee without any notice if he is found guilty of misconduct, breach of trust or neglect of duty. (3) Nothing in sub‑regulation (1) shall affect the right of the Bank to make an employee retire or to dismiss an employee without giving notice or pay in lieu thereof in accordance with the provisions of sub regulation (4) and regulation 95 or its right to determine the service of an employee without notice or pay in lieu thereof on his being certified by the authorised medical attendant to be permanently incapacitated for further continuous service in the Bank etc. etc.

6. It is an admitted position that one of the terms and conditions of the appointment letter was that there would be a satisfactory report about the antecedents and the character of the employee from the Police Authorities. On the showing of the respondent himself the police had submitted an adverse report, whereupon his services were terminated in 1985. What is more the respondent had not even cared to challenge the order of termination.

7. Once the respondent had lost his service it was open to him to prefer a departmental appeal and failing to obtain redress, settle the preliminaries and later file the petition for reinstatement under section 25‑A, I.R.O. He did not choose to do so and nothing was heard in that context for years together, till he came to be reinstated as alleged on the direction of the Secretary to the then Prime Minister. All I need say is that it had no semblance of law or legal procedure.

8. Be that as it may once he had staged a comeback he remained on job for about 2 years and more, till again there was a turn of events and the authorities once again terminated his service simpliciter. The fact that they undid the wrong could not be said to be a colourable exercise of power.

9. The appellant is a Statutory Corporation with its Rules and Regulations and is the sole arbiter of its affairs. The relations between the Bank and its employees :are that of a master and servant and the only remedy open to an aggrieved employee is to sue for compensation. This was the view taken in Anwar Hussain v. A.D.B.P. of Pakistan and others reported in PLD 1984 Supreme Court page 1994; Raziuddin v. Chairman, P.IA. (PLD 1992 Supreme Court page 531) and in a number of other cases.

10. I agree with Mr. Shari Muhammadi the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent was a workmen. There was no challenge to the nature of the respondent's duties but since there was no breach 6f any of the rules of the Corporation which can be the only ground for interference that would be, the end of the matter. It is true that the S.P., Khairpur at the latter stage had reported that there was nothing against the respondent with his department at Khairpur, but there can be no denying the earlier report. At any rate the Corporation under its Regulation, can terminate the services, any time without assigning any reasons.

11. I am therefore of the opinion that the conclusion drawn by the learned Presiding Officer cannot be sustained. I will therefore vacate the order and allow the appeal. H.B.T./2187/Lb.S Appeal allowed.