Termination of Services

Under the labour laws, there is no provision permitting the employer to terminate the services of the worker verbally without a written order

Termination of service by a verbal order is alien to the labour law.

Said members of Tribunal were to be impartial and independent from external pressures so that they might decide the cases fairly and in accordance with law

Members of Service Tribunal should protect the rights of civil servants against unlawful acts of Authority and they must be independent in their authority

Judicial independence was important as it guaranteed that judges were free to decide the matters honestly, impartially and in accordance with law without any concern or fear of interference, control or improper influence from anyone

Persons appointed as Members of Tribunal were directly subordinate to the Authority of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council which was stigma on their impartiality

Present formation of Service Tribunal was against the concept/spirit of independence of judiciary

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council had adopted the Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973

Supreme Court of Pakistan had declared Ss.3(1), 3(3), 3(3)(b), 3(4) & 3(7) of Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973 along with R. 2 of Service Tribunals (Qualification of Members) Rules, 1974 and Federal Service Tribunal Chairman and Members Service Rules, 1983 as ultra vires the Constitution

Amendments had been made in the Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973 as well as relevant Acts and Rules of Provincial Service Tribunals

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council had failed to take necessary steps in this regard in view of the provisions of S.3(2) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Adaptation of Laws Act, 1979

Amendments made in Federal Service Tribunals Act/Rules had automatically been adopted by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council and no further legislation was required

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Services of the employee, along with several other workers having been terminated on the ground that their services were "no longer required", all workers including the employee filed grievance application

Labour Court by a common judgment reinstated workers with 75% back benefits, except six workers, including the employee; whose application was dismissed on the ground that after withdrawing his legal dues deposited in his Bank account gradually, he ceased to be an "aggrieved person"

Said amount of legal dues, was deposited in account of the employee after termination of his services

Gradual withdrawal of said amount by the employee to sustain his life during unemployment, would not amount to waiver so as to estop him from challenging his unlawful termination

Labour Court as well as Tribunal were required to pass just and proper orders with regard to appropriate relief to be given to the employee; which could not be limited only to reinstatement, but would include award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement

Labour Court or Tribunal, was not handicapped to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement, if that be the just and proper order in the circumstance of the case

Employee as per his own claim, served for four years only

Award of lump sum reasonable compensation of Rs.300,000, in lieu of reinstatement was given to him

Employer, was directed to deposit said amount within 30 days.

Member National Industrial Relations Commission, after setting aside termination order of the employee, having directed the appellant/employer Corporation to reinstate the employee

Validity

Employee had admitted that he was previously serving in the Complex, which was department of the Corporation where he was employed on contract basis; that he had signed the contract agreement whereby his employment was for the period of two years; which could be revoked at any time by the appellant employer corporation and that said period of contract was further extended time and again

Employee, held, could not claim, in circumstances, that his service had become permanent under Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Employee was retired/relieved under Golden Handshake Scheme after receiving dues and benefits

Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, was not applicable to the employee

Order of Member National Industrial Relations Commission was set aside by the Full Bench of the Commission.

Contention of the petitioners was that although they were not qualified on the date of advertisement but subsequently they attained the required qualification, therefore their termination was not justified

Validity

Neither the petitioners were qualified nor they had requisite experience when the posts were advertised

Petitioners being not having required qualification and experience had not fulfilled the eligibility criteria

Impugned termination orders were not arbitrary and perverse in circumstances

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Constitutional petition under Art.199 of the Constitution filed by contract employee of such corporate body, challenging termination of his services

Maintainability

Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether petition was maintainable against a corporate body, which had no statutory rules, and whether contract employee after termination of services by the competent authority could be reinstated in exercise of powers under Art.199 of the Constitution.

Petitioners were employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Limited (PTCL) and their services were terminated by authorities on their demand to increase basic salary as announced by Federal Government

Validity

Authorities were pre-decided to terminate services of those employees who were not surrendering before them at their terms

Demand of affidavits that employees would not take part in union activities was against law

To form union and become its member is a fundamental right of employee / labourer and refusal to employee or to sabotage his right to become member of labour union is an offence

Petitioners had more than 20 years of service and institution had thrown them out by violating fundamental right of hearing and fair trial under Art. 10-A of the Constitution

Petitioners were not heard, no charge sheet was issued and their services were terminated without any lawful authority

Termination of services of petitioners was without lawful authority and of no legal effect resultantly petitioners would deemed to be in service

High Court directed the authorities to initiate proceedings in accordance with law, if they had any grievance against petitioners

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Services of appellant working as driver in House Building Finance Corporation were terminated and his departmental appeal was dismissed with the direction that he being a workman, should approach the Labour Court

Appellant served a grievance notice and thereafter within two months filed grievance petition, which was dismissed by the Labour Court on the ground that it was barred by 28 days as appellant should have immediately come to the Labour Court

Said order of the Labour Court was erroneous on the face of it, because even if appellant did not approach the Labour Court, yet he had served the grievance notice and thereafter filed grievance petition within two months

Appellant had to comply with the statutory provisions

Time spent in that regard could not render his grievance petition barred by time

Impugned order, in circumstances was illegal

Said order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court, with the direction to decide the case on merits.

Service rules by the Employer-Corporation provided that service of an employee could not be discontinued until and unless the formalities provided therein were fulfilled

Employer under the said rules, was legally bound to convey the deficiencies if found against petitioners during the period of their service

No document was issued by Employer against petitioners levelling any of the charges disqualifying them from continuation of 'service or any notice requiring improvement in proficiency

Employer, in circumstances, did not bother to provide an opportunity to petitioners to be heard and thus acted in violation of self made rules as well as basic principle of law "audi alteram partem".

Services of petitioners having been terminated, they filed application before Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 in which they claimed payment of their salaries and other wages

Authority allowed claims of petitioners to the extent of payment of their salaries plus three times compensation, while their claims with regard to other wages, were refused

On filing appeal against judgment of Authority before Labour Court, Presiding Officer of Labour Court found that Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 had no jurisdiction to entertain application of petitioners with regard to their claims and dismissed appeal against which petitioners had filed constitutional petition

Validity

Employer, Government Employees Co-operative Housing Societies was not an industry or commercial establishment because twenty or more workmen were not employed therein

Society could not be considered as commercial establishment as its business was not of advertising, commission or forwarding or a commercial agency or including therein a clerical department of a factory or of any industrial or commercial undertaking

Work which the society performed, simply was to obtain a chunk of land from the Government and thereafter to allot same to its members

No job, in circumstances was being done by the Society of mature of factory, industrial or commercial nature

To invoke the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, it was necessary according to S.1(4) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 that employer must be a factory, industrial establishment or commercial establishment

If all said three essentials were not present, employer would not tall within the definition of `employer' and the employees would not be able to file grievance petition against employer

Society being not "factory", "commercial establishment" and "industrial establishment", decision of Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, could not be held illegal or unlawful.

Services of appellants having been terminated by gate-stop, they filed their grievance petitions against their termination praying for their reinstatement in service

Management took the plea that contractors who were working at Unit No.1 where appellant used to work, had left the Mill abruptly without any notice to the Management as such no work was available to be done by the appellants

Services of other workers were either terminated or on their own option they were shifted to other units

Labour Court having dismissed grievance petitions filed by appellants they had filed appeal

Affidavit submitted by Factory Manager as witness of management, neither had disclosed the' names of the contractors who allegedly had left the Mill, nor the nature of work being done by them; nor the explicit circumstances, under which services of appellants lost their utility and were rendered redundant, whereby employer was constrained to terminate their services were explained

Said witness admitted in his cross-examination that employer had not obtained any permission from the court for closure of the mill

Contention of closure of factory was devoid of force and absolutely unacceptable for the simple reason that employer was prohibited by the law from closing down whole of the Establishment except in case of eventualities specified under Standing Order 11-A of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Closure of establishment and termination of workers on that account being in flagrant violation of law, was patently illegal

Labour Court had committed grave error of law as it neither considered, nor disclosed that aspect of the case and rendered an infirm and invalid decision, which could .hardly be sustained

Appeals were accepted and orders passed by the Labour Court were set aside

Appellants were directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

Consequent upon the Award given by the 7th Wage Board, wages of all categories of workmen including the `Newspapers employees' were increased, but such benefit was not extended to the appellants

On insistence of appellants for awarding such benefit to them, services of appellants were terminated without issuance of any show-cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing on the ground that the Management was suffering financial losses for last many months

Grievance notice served by appellants on the management having not been responded, appellants filed separate grievance petitions praying therein for reinstatement in service with full back benefits

Management in written statement, raised preliminary legal objections regarding maintainability of grievance petitions on various grounds

Labour Court accepted legal objections of management to the extent that no prayer for. reinstatement was made in the grievance notice and Labour Court summarily dismissed grievance petitions of appellants, who had filed appeal against judgment of the Labour Court

Validity

Management never denied receipt of a document claimed by appellants as grievance notice, but objection of Management was that it could not be termed as grievance notice for reinstatement in service

Contents of the grievance notice, manifestly showed that appellants had stated in categorical terms that they were very much aggrieved by termination of their services

Sole purpose of issuing grievance notice was to bring to the notice of the employer/Management that concerned worker was "aggrieved" by any action on the part of Management

Legislature had not prescribed any pro forma or format of grievance notice

Even in law, no provision had been made for service of grievance notice through a legal practitioner which itself was adequate to assume that the Legislature intended to avoid all kinds of technicalities, so far as dispensation of labour adjudication was concerned

Summary disposal of grievance petitions in a cursory, hasty and slipshod manner was highly deplorable, which would not be in consonance with the object of promulgation of remedial Legislation such as Labour Laws

Labour Court proceeded to pass mindless and perverse order in a most capricious manner, whereby appellants were thrown out of the court for none of their fault

Impugned orders passed by the Labour Court were set aside by the High Court in appeal and it was declared that grievance notices were properly and legally served upon the Management

Cases were remanded for deciding grievance petitions on merits in accordance with law.

Order terminating services of appellant, was set aside in appeal by Service Tribunal and appellant was ordered to be reinstated in service with back-benefits

Back-benefits as granted to appellant by Service Tribunal, having not been paid, appellant had to file present appeal

Relief as prayed for by appellant had already been granted by the Authority to an evenly placed other employee, but appellant had been discriminated and denied that relief

Effect

Appellant was entitled to the same treatment as had been meted out to other employee

By treating intervening period as leave without pay, judgment passed earlier by Service Tribunal, had been violated by the department

Back­benefits, would include annual increments, payment of bonus and consideration for promotion and all said benefits were denied to the appellant

Department, in that manner had not correctly interpreted judgment of Service Tribunal

Accepting appeal, department was directed to decide claim of appellant for grant of pay for intervening period and other benefits which were legally due, would also be granted to appellant.

Enquiry Committee, in such situation had to administer a warning to appellant and after recording a finding to that effect, had to proceed with enquiry ex parte by recording statements of witnesses in support of charges leveled against appellant

After evaluating and assessing same, Enquiry Committee was supposed to determine the guilt or otherwise of appellant and submit its recommendations to Syndicate for further needful, but same was not done

Neither any warning was administered to appellant nor statements were recorded nor Committee had determined the guilt of appellant

Committee had simply referred matter to Syndicate for further. necessary action

Matter, in circumstances was remanded for initiation oh fresh disciplinary proceedings against appellant purely in accordance with law after providing every reasonable opportunity to appellant to defend himself

Appellant would be reinstated, but he was to remain under suspension during enquiry proceedings.

Plea raised by the, employee was that Supreme Court in its earlier decision had reinstated other employees terminated on similar grounds

Validity

Services of the employee were governed by clause relating to dismissal as mentioned in the contract of employee itself whereby the right of reply to show-cause notice, was to be provided

Following the dictum laid down in the earlier judgment, Supreme Court converted the petition for leave to appeal into appeal and the judgment passed by Service Tribunal was set aside

-Appeal was allowed.

Services of appellant, who was serving in respondent-Bank as Senior Executive Vice-President, were terminated on ground that he was involved in criminal charges and. F.I.R., was registered against him and that he was under arrest

Services of appellants were terminated without providing him opportunity of personal hearing and without intimating charges/allegations against him

Principle of "Master and Servant" was applied to the appellant while terminating his services without any charge-sheet, show-cause notice or personal hearing

Appellant's termination was because of his arrest in pursuance of F.I.R. which had been quashed by High Court

­Termination of appellant was effected in undue haste and without ascertaining the correct facts which culminated in arrest of appellant

­Respondent-Bank should have exercised prudence and investigates circumstances which led to arrest of accused and that was all the more necessary as it was admitted on part of respondent-Bank that Bank had not initiated any, criminal proceedings against appellant nor there was anything adverse against the appellant

Under such situation it was incumbent upon respondent-Bank to go slow on terminating services of appellant

Stand taken by respondent-Bank that services of appellant were not terminated by way of punishment, but had been terminated on basis -Master and Servant" relationship, was a shift in its position of and such fluctuation in respondent's stance did not impart credibility to its action against appellant

Delay in filing appeal before Service Tribunal was condoned in circumstances of case

Circumstances in which appellant was involved in false criminal charges and was subjected to degradation of arrest in F.I.R. which was quashed had proved that appellant was made a victim of a conspiracy and vengeance of a private complainant which made appellant to undergo mental agony and torture

Accepting appeal, order terminating services of appellant, was set aside and he was directed to be reinstated in service with all full monetary and other consequential benefits.

Ad hoc appointment would not confer any right on any incumbent to continue endlessly.

Determination regarding factum of wilful absence made by the Department had been affirmed by the Service Tribunal and the same could not be reversed without sufficient lawful justification

Supreme Court does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact given by Departmental Authority and Service Tribunal

Civil servant failed to point out any such lawful justification for interference by Supreme Court

No question of law of public importance having been involved in the matter, leave to appeal was refused.

National Industrial Relations Commission set aside the order of termination of the employee and the order was maintained by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction

Validity

No illegality had been committed by High Court in maintaining the order passed by the National Industrial Relations. Commission, warranting interference by Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused.

authenticity of answer sheets produced by registrar examination could not be doubted ,which remained in safe custody letter of appointment of civil servant indicated that by interpolation her name was got inserted in a single appointment letter concerning other candidate

Record showed that civil servant had been issued proper show-cause notice, which he had replied while submitting his PTC certificate having been tampered with by someone else

Both certificates after proper verification had been found bogus

In view of such verification, question of any inquiry or further probe would not arise

All mandatory formalities as envisaged under Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 had been complied with and no prejudice had been caused to civil servant

Impugned judgment did not warrant interference

Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal.

Employee served the employer for about seven years, but his services were terminated verbally without issuing him any, show-cause notice or conducting any inquiry or providing any personal hearing to him

Grievance petition filed by employee against his termination order having been dismissed by Labour Court, employee had filed appeal against that order

Grievance petition filed by .employee was resisted by employer contending that employee did not fall within definition of "workman"

Validity

Employee had been terminated without a written order and though employers had alleged misconduct against employee, but he had not been proceeded against in accordance with mandatory directions contained in West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Duty of employee was to check availability of products package-wise, in the market and he was not responsible for manufacturing process and quality control of product supplied by employers to retailers from their distributors

In cross-examination of employee nothing had been suggested to him regarding performance of his duties

Witnesses produced by employer were silent as to the nature of duty of employee

Labour Court was not justified to hold that employee was not a workman simply because he was designated as a Sales Officer

Such would not derogate from the fact that employee was actually a workman doing manual/clerical work of visiting markets and checking stocks therein

High Court, accepting appeal of employee set aside judgment of Labour Court and employee was ordered to be reinstated with full back-benefit.

Services of civil servants, who were working in different disciplines, were terminated without issuing them show-cause notices

Conditions of services of civil servants had clearly shown that they were appointed specifically by Authorities for their project requirement and it was also mentioned in appointment letters of civil servants that their appointments would automatically stand terminated on completion of project

All said conditions of service were accepted by civil servants at the time of joining their assignments

Order of termination, in circumstances, could not be said to be void ab initio or that the same was bad in law for non-issuing show-cause notice

Appeals against orders of termination, otherwise being hopelessly time barred were declined to be admitted for hearing.

Civil servant subsequently was granted study leave and was required to fill in bond stating therein that after qualifying FCPS, she would serve Authorities at least for five years

During course of her study leave, civil servant was terminated on allegation that her appointment was irregular and that her application being unsolicited one, her very appointment order was void ab initio

Services of civil servant were terminated in her absence without issuing her show-cause notice and without holding any inquiry against her

No allegation of misconduct was levelled against the civil servant and she was also not .lacking qualification for her post

Validity

Service of civil servant was terminated after about five years from his appointment simply on the ground that his services were not required by the employerCorporation

Civil servant, who was appointed as per prescribed procedure, was placed on probation for a period of six months and after completion of the said probationary period was eligible for confirmation

Corporation could terminate services of civil servant under Regln.11 of House Building Finance Corporation Service Regulations, 1959, provided it acted in good faith, without any discrimination in the interest of Corporation and not on extraneous considerations

If termination of civil servant was ordered not in the interest of Corporation, but as a result of discrimination and in violation of principles of natural justice and pick and choose policy which was in violation of principles of "Last in First out (LIFO)" as laid down in S.11(2) of Civil Servants Act, 1973

Termination of civil servant from service, was unjustified legally and was also based on distortion of facts

Order terminating services of civil servant, not passed in a transparent, fair and equitable manner smacked of partiality and mala fides on the part of respondent-Corporation„ being illegal, was not sustainable in law

Service Tribunal condoned delay in filing appeal against termination order, accepted appeal of civil servant, set aside order terminating his services and ordered his reinstatement in service.

Despite her being overage, the civil servant was appointed as Lady Medical Officer, on recommendations of Prime Minister's Secretariat

-Authorities terminated her services on the ground that her appointment was made in violation of the rules

Civil servant contended that her appointment was regular as she was interviewed by the Selection Committee

Validity

Such interview by Selection Committee could not make ipso facto the

Civil servant was terminated from service by Competent Authority and against the order of termination, civil servant preferred departmental appeal/representation which was despatched under postal cover

Appellate Authority did not consider the appeal at all or, the same was not placed before it for the reasons best known to the quarters concerned

Order passed by the Appellate Authority was not a speaking order

Civil servant was not even. afforded a chance of personal hearing before passing the termination orders

Authenticity and genuineness of the postal certificate was neither challenged, nor questioned by the Authorities before Service Tribunal

Appeal before Service Tribunal was allowed, termination order was set aside and the case was remanded to the Authorities for decision afresh

Validity

Where the civil servant was not afforded a chance of personal hearing before passing of termination order, such order would be void ab initio

Service Tribunal had rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the termination order

Judgment passed by the Service Tribunal was well-reasoned and based on the law laid down by Supreme Court

No misreading or non-reading of material available on record was found

Question of general public importance was also not involved in the matter

Leave to appeal was refused.

National Industrial Relations Commission set aside the order of termination of the employee and the order was maintained by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction

Validity

No illegality had been committed by High Court in maintaining the order passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission, warranting interference by Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused.

Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave with direction to Tribunal to decide appeal of civil servant as early as possible.

Service Tribunal by allowing petitioners' appeals ordered their reinstatement in service, but treated intervening period as extraordinary leave

Validity

Supreme Court had already granted back-benefits to other employees of the same Department while accepting their petitions filed against the same impugned judgment

Present petitioners were party in the impugned judgment of Tribunal and were aggrieved of the same, but had filed petitions now

Observing that Department should have been magnanimous enough to have allowed such benefit to the present petitioners, Supreme Court converted petitions into appeal and allowed all back-benefits to the petitioners.

Services of employees were terminated straightaway on ground that they were recommended by Prime Minister's Secretariat and they were termed as "political appointees'

On tiling grievance petition by employees against said termination, Labour Court declared termination Order as illegal and reinstated employees in service, but without any order with regard to back­ benefits at employees

Labour Court had declared order of termination of employees as illegal because in terminating employees, legal formalities in term of show-cause notice and enquiry into matter, were not observed by employers

When the Labour Court had declared termination of employees as illegal, void, ab initio, it was incumbent upon it to have allowed back ­benefits to employees as a natural corollary because employees remained out of service/job during period of their termination without any fault on their part

No evidence was on record to the effect that employees joined any service of other Firms/Establishments during period of their termination from service

Employees were granted full back-benefits, in circumstances.

Employees in their petition filed after more than one year from termination of their services had alleged that their services had been-terminated due to their lawful trade union activities which amounted to unfair labour practice on the part of employers

Employees had failed to cite any specific instance of alleged lawful trade union activities in their petition or in their affidavits in evidence which could annoy employers to such an extent that they would go out of their way to victimize employees, particularly when petitioners-Union was not a Collective Bargaining Agent which was supposed to be dormant till such time when same was elected as a Collective Bargaining Agent

Mere allegation that employees were office-bearers and members of union and they had been terminated due to their trade union activities, would not prove the case of employees

Employers had proved that services of employees were terminated due to closure of workshop as per decision of their Board of Directors

National Industrial Relations Commission, in circumstances, had no jurisdiction to interfere with the matter, because jurisdiction of the Commission was restricted to .cases based on allegation of unfair labour practice.

Effective date of termination orders would be the date when same were signed and not date of receipt by the employee.

Termination of employee being simpliciter and no misconduct of the employee was involved, it was not necessary to hold any enquiry

In order to dispense with services of permanent workman, unless there was allegation of misconduct against him it would be enough to give him one month's notice or in lieu thereof, one month's wages calculated on the basis of average wages earned by him during last three months

Order terminating services of employee carried endorsement at its end to the effect that he had received his dues in full and final payment

Mandatory provision, iv circumstances, was complied with for purpose of dispensing with service of employee

For ordering termination of services of employee all requirements of S.O.12 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, having been complied with there was nothing illegal about order of termination.

Salesman was not "workman", for purpose of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.

Servant would be entitled to notice and opportunity of hearing before any adverse action is taken against him.

Services of civil servants were terminated without issuing them show-cause notice or holding inquiry, simply on the ground that their services were no longer required

Said civil servants were not alleged to be disqualified, inefficient or corrupt

Even after so-called closure of establishment, Authorities had appointed so many persons, some on monthly basis and some on daily wages

If Authorities wanted to reduce strength of civil servants for the sake of reorganization or for reducing expenditure of establishment, then after closure of establishment new persons should have not been appointed

Such act of Authorities had shown that work in the establishment was still going on and it was wrong to say that there was total closure of establishment

Civil servants who were terminated on ground of being no longer required, having been targeted by Authorities on pick and choose formula deserved to be reinstated

Order of terminating services of civil servants, were set aside and they were ordered to be reinstated in service.

Civil servant having failed to prove that he was permanently appointed, his services were rightly terminated under terms, and conditions of his contractual appointment and such termination not suffering from any infirmity, could not be interfered with.

Civil servant was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, but his services were terminated after issuing him show-cause notice on ground that his appointment was made in complete violation, of method of appointment prescribed by Civil Servants Act, 1973 and Rules made thereunder and without observing the formalities

Advertisement for post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of police showed that minimum qualification was Intermediate'C' Grade whereas civil servant was in'D' Grade and age required under Rules for said post was 18 to 28 years on the date of advertisement, but age of civil servant at that time was 30 years, 5 months and 7 days

Appointment of civil servant which was to be made on recommendation of Selection Board was made on political basis on recommendation of Minister despite civil servant had failed in written test and viva voce test held by Selection Board, constituted under Police Rules 1934, R. 12.5

Civil servant who otherwise was not qualified to be appointed to the post having been appointed on political influence in violation and in complete disregard of Police Rules and without observing formalities as laid dawn by Supreme Court in its judgment reported in 1993 SCMR 1287, his services were rightly terminated.

In case of stigmatized ouster even contractees would be entitled to a show-cause notice and a proper inquiry.

Service Tribunal ordered the re-instatement of employs, but employer did not take them on duty thus, deprived there from salary for such period

Validity

Employer had an obligation to honour the judgment of Service Tribunal and reinstate the- employees or if employer had any reservation in not implementing the judgment, then a stay order should have been obtained from the Supreme Court

Employer had not obtained any stay order, thus, judgment of Service Tribunal remained operative

Supreme Court directed that employees be reinstated with effect from the date of passing of judgment of Service Tribunal with all back benefits.

Services of the petitioners employed as Area Managers in State Life Insurance Corporation were terminated on account of unsatisfactory performance for not achieving the requisite amount , of business

Service Tribunal dismissed the petitioners'appeals on the ground that they were not permanent employees, thus, their services could be terminated as contract employees, if their performance was not found to be satisfactory

Contention of petitioners was that their services could not be terminated at the whims of the officers; according to State Life Insurance Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973, such action could be taken, which might be prescribed generally and specially by the Board; and that respondents had not referred to any decision made by the Board for taking action against an Area Manager in such circumstances

Validity

Appointment letters of petitioners as Area Managers showed that it was not an appointment on contract basis

Order of dismissal from service was made on the basis of terms and conditions of their appointment, which did not contain any condition for securing business to a particular limit

Service Tribunal had failed to appreciate the petitioner's case on merits on the assumption that they were contract employees

Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to further examine the case in the light of submissions made by the petitioners.

Respondent employed as Area Manager in State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, after termination of his service on account of unsatisfactory performance, was reinstated in service through compromise with an undertaking given by him that he would try his level best to achieve the business target, if his old staff was made available to him

Petitioners after evaluating the performance of respondent for one year found the same unsatisfactory, thus, terminated his services

Service Tribunal accepted the appeal of respondent on the ground that according to undertaking given by him, old staff had not been made available to him; he had been subjected to victimization; he had not been paid other entitlements, due to which the could not work with peace of mind; and that according to petitioners'Board decision performance of Area Manager had to be adjudged on the basis of three years'evaluation and not one year's performance as had been done in the present case

Validity

Previous termination of services of respondent was got published by petitioners in newspapers informing public at large that they should not deal with him as employee of the petitioners, which obviously had consequence to render him helpless to earn the business unless through another publication, the public was notified that he had been reinstated

Publication of such notice in newspaper was an implied condition of the terms of reinstatement of the respondent

Petitioners did not do so in spite of respondent's requests made in this behalf

No question of law of public importance was either involved or made out in the petition, which was a case of personal grievance

Question of fact had been decided by Service Tribunal, to which no exception could be taken

Petitioners undertook that respondent would be provided those available members of staff, out of the staff originally attached with him; and that public notice would be issued in newspapers throughout the country that respondent was an employee of the petitioners and he could deal with its business

If said conditions were fulfilled and other dues of respondent were paid during the service, then petitioners might according to rules and regulations, evaluate his performance of three years hereafter and then if necessary, proceed against him in accordance with Law

Supreme Court dismissed the petition subject to said observations.

After unsuccessfully challenging the order of termination of service before High Court and Supreme Court, petitioners ultimately filed appeals, before Service Tribunal, which were dismissed

Contention was that petitioners having rendered service for more than 3 years were entitled to have natural result of successful completion of their probation and as such this course having not been adopted by the Company, they were entitled to same treatment as had been meted out to Saleem Mustafa Sheikh and others (PLD 2001 SC 176)

Validity

Rules 6.1, 6.2 & 6.3 of Sui Gas Transmission Company Limited Service Rules, 1982 had been made applicable by Service Tribunal to terms and conditions of service of Saleem Mustafa Sheikh and others (PLD 2001 SC 176)

Without considering the import and implication of said Rules and in absence of any justifiable reasons, services of petitioners could not be terminated

Supreme Court converted petitions into appeals and allowed them by setting aside the judgments of Service Tribunal with direction to the Company to absorb the petitioners in their respective disciplines on same line as had been done in cases of Saleem Mustafa Sheikh and others (PLD 2001 SC 176).

Services of the petitioners employed as Area Managers in State Life Insurance Corporation were terminated on account of unsatisfactory performance for not achieving the requisite amount of business

Service Tribunal dismissed the petitioners'appeals on the ground that they were not permanent employees, thus, their services could be terminated as contract employees, if their performance was not found to be satisfactory

Contention of petitioners was that their services could not be terminated at the whims of the officers; according to State Life Insurance Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973, such action could betaken, which might be prescribed generally and specially by the Board; and that respondents had not referred to any decision mane by the Board for taking action against an Area Manager in such circumstances

Validity

Appointment letters of petitioners as Area Managers showed that it was not an. appointment on, contract basis

Order of dismissal from service was made on the basis of terms and conditions of their appointment, which did not contain any condition for securing business to a particular limit

Service Tribunal had failed to appreciate the petitioner's case on merits on the assumption that they were contract employees

Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to further examine the case in the light of submissions made by the petitioners.

Respondent employed as Area Manager in State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, after termination of his service on account of unsatisfactory performance, was reinstated in service through compromise with an undertaking given by him that he would try his level best to achieve the business target, if his old staff was made available to him

Petitioners after evaluating the performance of respondent for one year found the same unsatisfactory, thus, terminated his services

Service Tribunal accepted the appeal of respondent on the ground that according to undertaking given by him, old staff had not been made available to him; he had been subjected to victimization; he had not been paid other entitlements, due to which the could not work'with peace of mind; and that according to petitioners'Board decision performance of Area Manager had to be adjudged on the basis of three years'evaluation and not one year's performance as had been done in the present case

Validity

Previous termination of services of respondent was got published by petitioners in newspapers informing public at large that they should not deal with him as employee of the petitioners, which obviously had consequence to render him helpless to earn the business, unless through another publication, the public was notified that he had been reinstated

Publication of such notice in newspaper was an implied condition of the terms of reinstatement of the respondent

Petitioners did not do so in spite of respondent's requests made in this behalf

No question of law of public importance was either involved or made out in the petition, which was a case of personal grievance

Question of fact had been decided by Service Tribunal, to which no exception could be taken

Petitioners undertook that respondent would be provided those available members of staff, out of the staff originally attached with him; and that public notice would be issued in newspapers throughout the country that respondent was an employee of the petitioners and he could deal with its business

If said conditions were fulfilled and other dues of respondent were paid during the service, then petitioners might according to rules and regulations, evaluate his performance of three years hereafter and then if necessary, proceed against him in accordance with Law

Supreme Court dismissed the petition subject to said observations.

Petitioner being in employment of Muslim Commercial Bank Limited filed appeal before next higher Authority against his dismissal order, but the same was dismissed

Labour Court dismissed his grievance petition

Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed his appeal on the ground that he had not served grievance notice on his employer, and that his departmental appeal could not be treated and equated as grievance notice, which was a statutory requirement to be fulfilled by the worker under S.25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969

Constitutional petition filed by petitioner was also dismissed by, High Court

Validity

Petitioner had not served grievance notice upon his employer against his dismissal order

Appellate Authority was always considered to- be distinct and different entity from the original Authority competent to make appointment

Petitioner was appointed by Regional Manager being Competent Authority, whereas he had addressed appeal to the President of the Bank, who was not his Appointing Authority

Petitioner being a Cashier was a Category-II official, thus, according to Muslim Commercial Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981, President of the Bank could not be his appointing Authority, but Regional Manager would be the employer of petitioner for purposes of S.25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969

Appeal filed by petitioner before President of the Bank could not be treated as grievance notice within the meaning of S. 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969

Petitioner had initiated incompetent proceedings against the respondent as no grievance notice under S.25-A had been issued, as such High Court had rightly declined him the relief

Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition in circumstances.

Civil servant being a technical hand was fully qualified and having undergone training was found most suitable for the job as per recommendations of the Precision Engineering Department and was properly inducted in accordance with the rules on merits on the basis of test and interview

Civil servant was singled out alongwith two others out of the total strength of two hundred and fifty-nine incumbents and his services were terminated, without issuance of any show-cause notice, personal hearing and assigning any valid reason for the said termination

Validity

Authority in terminating services of the civil servant not only had violated principles of natural justice, but also the law and the rules on the subject

Order terminating services of civil servant was set aside and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

Civil servants who were appointed vide different orders had been rendering their services for a. pretty long time and had been receiving emoluments from concerned departments but all of a sudden their services were terminated without affording them an opportunity of hearing by violating unnecessarily recognized principle of audi alteram partem

Validity

Before passing adverse order against a person or imposing penalty upon him it was essential to give him notice for personal hearing and same could not be dispensed with unless there was a special provision in the relevant law that services of civil servant could be terminated without serving any notice upon him

Contention that orders of appointment of civil servants being ab initio void there was no necessity of giving them a notice, was repelled because there was vast difference between an order which was ab initio void and one which was violative of some rules

Case of Authorities was not that appointment of civil servants was made by an Authority who had no jurisdiction to appoint them

Orders of appointment of civil servants even if illegal, could not be regarded to be ab initio void.

Civil servant was appointed as Primary School Teacher and she served for about two years in Government school, but her salary cheque was withheld and then she was terminated without serving her any notice and terminating order

Authorities having failed to show any document whereby services of civil servant were legally terminated, order of termination was set aside directing Authorities to pay due salary and allowance to civil servant.