2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN (MEMBER).‑‑‑The appellants present in person have been heard and record perused. Both the appeals are being disposed of by this single judgment as the factual and legal points involved therein are identical in nature.

2. The appellants, Muhammad Ismail and Rehmat Ali, were appointed as Trainee Engineers under the respondent‑Company on 7‑5‑1995 and 28‑9‑1995 respectively: ‑‑ For a period of six months only, extendable at the discretion of the Company, subject to our receiving a satisfactory report on your health from our Medical Officer, on the clear understanding that this assignment is without commitment to provide you employment in the Organization to any stage. with the direction to report for training assignment to the Authority/Office concerned.

3. The appellant, Muhammad Ismail, complains that after undergoing the requisite training he was not absorbed under the respondent‑Company which is a discriminatory treatment, meted out to him. It has however, been contended by the appellants that they have rendered about five years service, inclusive of training period, but despite that and having become regular they have been terminated from service. In this respect rule 12.1 of the Sui Gas Transmission Company Limited Executive Service Rules, 1982, applicable to the appellants, is crystal clear where-under their services have been terminated and as such it can be safely stated that termination of the appellants is simpliciter in nature attaching no stigma to it and in such‑like cases none has got any legal grievance. The said rule 21.1 reads: ‑‑- "21.1. The Company may terminate the services of an Executive not on probation at any time, without assigning any reason by giving three months notice in writing or payment in lieu of the notice of a sum equivalent to his remuneration for this period or a sum equal to proportionate remuneration for the unexpired period of the notice." The said rule when read in conjunction with the appointment letters, confers no vested right or guarantee for continuation of services to the appellants under the respondent‑Company. Reliance is also placed on the cases reported as: ‑‑ (i) 1980 SCMR 1510; (ii) 1990 SCMR 1506; and (iii) 1993 SCMR

114. Wherein it has been held that the Competent Authority can terminate services of such‑like incumbents without notice and assigning any reason. In fact, termination simpliciter does not create a cause of action and for that matter it does not debar such an incumbent from future employment either in the same organization or elsewhere.

4. Law changes with the passage of time and so is the case of change in human nature i.e. culture and habits. Earlier the rule of law and practice was honesty, fairness and dedicated service but now the matter goes reverse as has been continuously demonstrated by the general public and the public authorities. The latter are legally and morally bound to give a good lead to the public but the political divide, essential in democratic set‑up, plays a havoc in underdeveloped and poor countries due to ignorance of the down trodden sections of society and since the last several years this country has been confronted with mass induction into various governmental and non governmental organizations, inclusive of corporations and financial institutions ultimately resulted in creation of "surplus pools" which is a stigma on the fair face of good governance, notions of fair-play, honesty and the organizations meant for accommodating, say hundreds were burdened with thousands of employees which thereby disturbed the whole society and hence the country is heavily indebted internally as well externally to the organization likely IMF, the World Bank, etc.

5. Karachi Bench of this Tribunal had earlier accepted 42 appeals of similar incumbents but, on appeal, by the respondent‑Bank, the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan vide its detailed and elaborate judgment reported as 1999 PLC (C.S.) 1032, authored by Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Honourable Chief Justice, then adorning the Supreme Court, accepted the appeals of the respondent‑Bank and thereby set aside the judgment of the said Bench of this Tribunal with the observation that it was not the job of the Service Tribunal to determine whether retention of the employees was in the] interest of the Bank or otherwise for the reason that financial institutions are led by their own financial resources where the weight body for which the Bank was not under obligation to the burden.

6. It has been seen during the modern and even scientific/technological era that we have not learnt lesson from the past so much so that surplus pools are created in all the organizations which; simply are necessitated due to commission of grave and serious irregularities both administrative and financial (inclusive of corruption charges). These and other serious factors are responsible for the financial ills of the departments and as a whole the country, as already stated, is heavily indebted not only internally but also externally.

7. The object for which this country was created, after sacrifices, materially deviated from its noble purpose entitled in the statement Unity, Faith and Discipline which are now lacking. Everyone is after . and the notions of good governance, honesty and fairness are deeds of the past. One wonders that under what circumstances people in thousands are inducted in organizations /institutions which cannot sustain and maintain them.

8. Pursuant to the aforesaid discussion both these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed in limine being misconceived and devoid of merits/substance.

9. However, copies of this judgment shall be mailed to the appellants for their information. H.B.T./141/FST. Appeals dismissed.