Bank Employee

Duties such as issuing cheque books, checking ledgers and preparing statements of accounts are not merely manual or clerical tasks, and do not fall within the works of a workman as they involve the exercise of discretion and decision-making

Where bank employees are involved, duties and functions are documented as is (their) daily work, which should be brought before the court in evidence.

Duties such as issuing cheque books, checking ledgers and preparing statements of accounts are not merely manual or clerical tasks, and do not fall within the works of a workman as they involve the exercise of discretion and decision-making

Where bank employees are involved, duties and functions are documented as is (their) daily work, which should be brought before the court in evidence.

Respondent-employee was dismissed from service on 3.10.1991 and his review petition dated 19.4.1992 was rejected by the Competent Authority on 5.7.1992

Respondent filed his suit for on 12.6.1993, after almost one year

Cause of action to file a suit for compensation/damages arose to the Respondent on 5.7.1992 and was therefore within the limitation of one year provided in Article 22 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for claiming compensation for any other injury to the person

Appeal was dismissed.

In the present case when the Respondent-employee was dismissed from service, it would have been difficult for him to be employed again owing to the fact that a dismissal from service on his record would have had the effect of either barring him from further employment or making it considerably more difficult for him to be employed again

Such blot on his service permanently marked the Respondent for the rest of his life and was only washed away when the Respondent passed away

Had the Appellant-bank treated the Respondent in a just and fair manner and conducted a fair, open and impartial inquiry giving him the opportunity to defend himself, the financial and reputational aspect of a claim in tort would have been non-existent or too remote

Dismissal from service is clearly a stigma and financial and reputational loss apart from mental torture, agony and distress are logical consequences

In the present case, owing to denial of the right to defend himself without just cause leads towards a conclusion of wrongful dismissal and financial as well as economic loss and therefore could naturally be considered to arise out of the wrongful dismissal of the Respondent by the Appellant

Since the Respondent had been wrongfully dismissed from service, the Appellant cannot be granted the premium of not being made to compensate the Respondent especially when the Appellant failed to prove that the damages the Respondent sought were too remote or did not naturally arise out of the breach of contract

Once the Respondent had proved that he had been wrongfully dismissed from service, the onus shifted on the Appellant to prove that the damages claimed by the Respondent were either too remote or did not arise out of the breach of contract

In the absence of anything to the contrary, the Respondent was entitled to such damages that in the opinion of the Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arose directly out of the breach of contract as well as all damages claimed for wrongful dismissal from service

Appeal was dismissed.

At no point did the Appellant-bank during cross-examination of the Respondent-employee ever try to rebut or deny the allegations made by him against the involvement of the General Management in the losses that had led to the initial preliminary inquiry and subsequent dismissal of the Respondent by the Appellant

In fact, the Appellant had agreed that it had allowed the General Manager, under whose instructions and supervision the Respondent worked, to resign as opposed to being dismissed from service

When the Respondent responded to the show-cause notice issued to him by the Appellant, he demanded a "full and complete" hearing before the Enquiry Committee

However, the Enquiry Committee constituted for probing the allegations against the Respondent dispensed with such requirement (under Rule 39 of the Habib Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981) without giving any reason and proceeded to dismiss the services of the Respondent

Principle of audi alteram partem i.e. being granted a hearing before an adverse order is passed applies to employees who are to be dismissed from service since dismissal entails reputational as well as financial loss

Enquiry Committee by dispensing with the requirements of Rule 39 of the Habib Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981 infringed the right of the Respondent to present oral evidence and cross-examine anyone who might have testified against him

Respondent was denied a fundamentally important right of an opportunity to defend himself

Furthermore, Respondent was discriminated against as admittedly the General Manager was the person who the Respondent reported to; under whose instructions the Respondent acted; and who admittedly appeared to be reason the branch of the Appellant faced colossal financial loss

Surprisingly, no civil proceedings were initiated by the Appellant against the General Manager and he was ultimately asked to resign from service whereas the Respondent was dismissed from service

Appellant had breached the Respondent's employment contract

Appeal was dismissed.

Doctrine of legitimate expectation connotes that a person may have a reasonable expectation of being treated in a certain way by administrative authorities owing to some uniform practice or an explicit promise made by the concerned authority

Legitimate expectation ascends in consequence of a promise, assurance, practice or policy made, adopted or announced by or on behalf of government of a public authority

When such a legitimate expectation is obliterated, it affords locus standi to challenge the administrative action before the court of law

However, it is for the Court to decide as to whether the expectation is legitimate or not

Said doctrine is applied as a tool to watch over the action of administrative authorities and in essence imposes on all authorities to act fair and square in all matters encompassing legitimate expectation.

Doctrine of legitimate expectation connotes that a person may have a reasonable expectation of being treated in a certain way by administrative authorities owing to some uniform practice or an explicit promise made by the concerned authority

Legitimate expectation ascends in consequence of a promise, assurance, practice or policy made, adopted or announced by or on behalf of government of a public authority

When such a legitimate expectation is obliterated, it affords locus standi to challenge the administrative action before the court of law

However, it is for the Court to decide as to whether the expectation is legitimate or not

Said doctrine is applied as a tool to watch over the action of administrative authorities and in essence imposes on all authorities to act fair and square in all matters encompassing legitimate expectation.

In the present case when the Respondent-employee was dismissed from service, it would have been difficult for him to be employed again owing to the fact that a dismissal from service on his record would have had the effect of either barring him from further employment or making it considerably more difficult for him to be employed again

Such blot on his service permanently marked the Respondent for the rest of his life and was only washed away when the Respondent passed away

Had the Appellant-bank treated the Respondent in a just and fair manner and conducted a fair, open and impartial inquiry giving him the opportunity to defend himself, the financial and reputational aspect of a claim in tort would have been non-existent or too remote

Dismissal from service is clearly a stigma and financial and reputational loss apart from mental torture, agony and distress are logical consequences

In the present case, owing to denial of the right to defend himself without just cause leads towards a conclusion of wrongful dismissal and financial as well as economic loss and therefore could naturally be considered to arise out of the wrongful dismissal of the Respondent by the Appellant

Since the Respondent had been wrongfully dismissed from service, the Appellant cannot be granted the premium of not being made to compensate the Respondent especially when the Appellant failed to prove that the damages the Respondent sought were too remote or did not naturally arise out of the breach of contract

Once the Respondent had proved that he had been wrongfully dismissed from service, the onus shifted on the Appellant to prove that the damages claimed by the Respondent were either too remote or did not arise out of the breach of contract

In the absence of anything to the contrary, the Respondent was entitled to such damages that in the opinion of the Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arose directly out of the breach of contract as well as all damages claimed for wrongful dismissal from service

Appeal was dismissed.

Respondent-employee was dismissed from service on 3.10.1991 and his review petition dated 19.4.1992 was rejected by the Competent Authority on 5.7.1992

Respondent filed his suit for on 12.6.1993, after almost one year

Cause of action to file a suit for compensation/damages arose to the Respondent on 5.7.1992 and was therefore within the limitation of one year provided in Article 22 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for claiming compensation for any other injury to the person

Appeal was dismissed.

At no point did the Appellant-bank during cross-examination of the Respondent-employee ever try to rebut or deny the allegations made by him against the involvement of the General Management in the losses that had led to the initial preliminary inquiry and subsequent dismissal of the Respondent by the Appellant

In fact, the Appellant had agreed that it had allowed the General Manager, under whose instructions and supervision the Respondent worked, to resign as opposed to being dismissed from service

When the Respondent responded to the show-cause notice issued to him by the Appellant, he demanded a "full and complete" hearing before the Enquiry Committee

However, the Enquiry Committee constituted for probing the allegations against the Respondent dispensed with such requirement (under Rule 39 of the Habib Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981) without giving any reason and proceeded to dismiss the services of the Respondent

Principle of audi alteram partem i.e. being granted a hearing before an adverse order is passed applies to employees who are to be dismissed from service since dismissal entails reputational as well as financial loss

Enquiry Committee by dispensing with the requirements of Rule 39 of the Habib Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981 infringed the right of the Respondent to present oral evidence and cross-examine anyone who might have testified against him

Respondent was denied a fundamentally important right of an opportunity to defend himself

Furthermore, Respondent was discriminated against as admittedly the General Manager was the person who the Respondent reported to; under whose instructions the Respondent acted; and who admittedly appeared to be reason the branch of the Appellant faced colossal financial loss

Surprisingly, no civil proceedings were initiated by the Appellant against the General Manager and he was ultimately asked to resign from service whereas the Respondent was dismissed from service

Appellant had breached the Respondent's employment contract

Appeal was dismissed.

Unless statutory intervention is available to an employee of a government corporation, attached department, autonomous body or next step agencies of the Government who wants to seek resort to constitutional jurisdiction, he can do so if he is able to show some dereliction of Statute, but for such element, the employees whose terms of service are governed by non-statutory dispensation remain in an incessant master and servant relationship with the employer.

Appellant assailed order passed by Single Judge of High Court whereby writ petition filed by respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be re-instated in service

Validity

Respondent whose terms and conditions were governed by Bank (employer) Staff Service Rules and who had been dismissed from service under said Rules could not have invoked the remedy afforded by Art.199 of the Constitution, since his relationship with the appellant was governed by the rule of master and servant

Appellant not being a person within the contemplation of Art.199, no writ could have been issued to it

Order passed by Single Judge could not be allowed to remain in field

Appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

Contention of respondent-Bank was that no order for reinstatement could be passed at the initial stage of grievance petition

Validity

Matter between the parties was still subjudice before National Industrial Relations Commission and jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition was yet to be decided

Order to suspend the operation of retirement letter was not called for, in circumstances

Impugned order had been passed during pendency of grievance petition

National Industrial Relations Commission was directed to decide the matter within a period of thirty days in accordance with law

High Court directed that no coercive action should be taken in the meanwhile against the Bank

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

High Court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction could not entertain the grievance of petitioner-employee against Bank

Petitioner might avail appropriate remedy as provided to him under the law

Constitutional petition was dismissed being not maintainable.

Employee was previously serving in other Bank "K", resigned from service of said Bank of his own accord and joined the employer bank

Being fully satisfied with performance of employee, employer Bank confirmed the service of employee

Services of the employee, however, were terminated without holding any enquiry, on the ground that a complaint was received against the employee from the Bank "K" where he was previously employed that he had been found guilty of misconduct; and was involved in fraudulent loans, criminal breach of trust; and that 'NAB' was investigating the matter

Employer Bank, terminated the service of employee and did not resort to the mechanism provided under S.O.15(4) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Grievance application filed by the employee against termination of his service, was dismissed by the Labour Court

Validity

Labour Court had failed to appreciate that employee remained in the employment of Bank of "K" for about six years; and after his resignation he served number of organizations

Termination of the employee without any inquiry, itself had shown the mala fide on the part of the employer Bank

Employee never received any letter or notice, either from the Bank "K" his previous employer or from the NAB Authorities

Employer, admitted that there was no complaint against the employee; that employer was satisfied with the performance of the employee and that termination of the employee , was a result of complaint lodged by the Bank "K" (previous employer) against the employee in the National Accountability Bureau (NAB)

Termination of the employee being illegal, based on mala fide consideration, was set aside and his appeal was allowed as prayed

Employer Bank was directed to reinstate the employee in service with all back benefits within thirty days.

Rule 22 of Muslim Commercial Bank Staff Service Rules, 1961, postulated that an employee could be dismissed by the competent authority and competent authority for that purpose was the General Manager or any officer authorized by the General Manager in that behalf; whereas, in the present case, order regarding dismissal of the employee from service was passed by the Controller of the Bank

In absence of any power, the order passed by the Controller of the Bank could only be dubbed as coram non judice.

Worker under S.25-A(4) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was given option, either to challenge the matter before the Labour Court on expiry of time specified for decision of the grievance by the employer in terms of S.25-A(2)(3) of the Ordinance, or he could challenge the final order of the employer/competent authority on the grievance notice served by him

In the present case, the documents produced by the petitioner/worker, had shown that right after his dismissal from service, he had been filing appeals/representations/applications before the departmental authorities for his reinstatement; which remained un-responded and lastly he served the employer Bank with grievance notice, with the prayer that he be reinstated in service

While replying to the said notice Bank authorities took the stance that he could not be reinstated as his request in that regard was time-barred

Upon receipt of reply from the Bank authorities, worker filed grievance petition before the Labour Court within the prescribed period of limitation

Observations of Labour Appellate Tribunal, coupled with the contention of counsel representing the employer, to the effect that the grievance petition filed by the worker was time-barred had no worth at all in circumstances.

Employee, who was removed from service, filed grievance petition, seeking reinstatement in service with back benefits, but said plea remained unproved as during the course of his testimony, employee did not state any thing about the entitlement for back benefits

Employer Bank was obliged to establish that employee was not entitled for back benefits as he remained gainfully employed elsewhere, only when the employee had asserted so while appearing in the witness box

Labour Court had rightly refused to grant back benefits to the employee, in circumstances.

If the employee was responsible for missing of Rs.5,000 penalty of dismissal from service, was not justified, especially in the light of the fact that order regarding his dismissal was passed by incompetent person

When the charge sheet was served upon the employee beyond the period of one month, subsequent superstructure raised thereon, could not be allowed to hold the field

Order accordingly.

Provisions of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, were applicable in respect of terms and conditions of the employees of the Bank

According to S.O. 15(4) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, employer could proceed against workman within one month of the misconduct, or within one month of the misconduct having come to knowledge of the employer

Second charge-sheet had shown that charge pertained to the alleged misappropriation of amount by the employee was intimated to him after more than six months

Second charge-sheet being violative of the mandatory provisions of S.O.15(4) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, was not sustainable.

None of the witnesses produced by the department stated with regard to charge but made statement that their earlier statements made before the Audit Officer be treated as final

Such statements of the witnesses were submitted in absence of employee before the Audit Officer

Employee was not afforded any opportunity of cross-examination of the said witnesses but he was cross-examined by the departmental representative

Opposite party should have right to cross-examine the witnesses of other party in the inquiry proceedings to test their veracity

Inquiry proceedings had not been conducted fairly, justly and in accordance with law by the inquiry officer

Neither inquiry report was supplied to the employee nor had been afforded right of hearing by the authority

Dismissal order had been passed in violation of Maxim audi alteram partam-Employee had been condemned unheard

Impugned order of dismissal of employee was not sustainable in law

Every citizen had fundamental right of fair trial and due process for determination of his civil rights and obligations

Every person had right to be treated in accordance with law

Such right in the present case had been trampled, ignored and blatantly refused in a callous manner

Inquiry proceedings and dismissal order were not sustainable in circumstances

Labour Appellate Tribunal had not noticed such glaring and crucial infirmities and illegalities in the inquiry proceedings

Both the Courts below had not legally, justly, rightly and correctly appreciated evidence on record

Impugned order passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal was declared without lawful authority having no legal effect which was set aside

Inquiry proceedings, inquiry report and order of dismissal from service were set aside leaving the employer-Bank if so opted to proceed afresh on the charges leveled against the employee

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Authorities in pursuance of order passed in an earlier constitutional petition afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioner employee and promoted him as Senior Vice President with effect from 01-05-2006

Employee received arrears of pay accrued to him in pursuance of his promotion without any protest and objection

Petitioner had accepted his promotion with his free will and consent from 01-05-2006

Nothing was left to be claimed by the employee qua his promotion

Petitioner's contention that he was to be promoted with effect from 01-12-2002 and not from 01-05-2006 had no weight as same was hit by principle of estoppel

Employee had not disclosed that he had sought promotion through constitutional petition which was dismissed and civil petition for leave to appeal against the same was pending before the Supreme Court

Employee had not approached the Court with clean hands and was not entitled to any relief

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Employees approached Service Tribunal but their service appeal was abated where after they approached Labour Court and matter was disposed of for being outside its jurisdiction

Appeal of employees was disposed of by the Supreme Court permitting them to approach Labour Court but they instead of filing petition before the said Court preferred constitutional petition directly before the High Court for the requisite relief

Validity

Employees had not moved the Labour Court ever since the order passed by the Supreme Court

Present constitutional petition had been preferred on the ground of discrimination which could be agitated before the Labour Court where employees might file grievance petition

Principle of res judicata was attracted in the present constitutional petition

Constitutional petition was dismissed being not maintainable.

Employer Bank was entitled to make Rules in the interest of exigency of service and to remove anomalies in the service rules

Service Rules Committee had to determine the eligibility criteria of promotion which was an administrative matter falling within the exclusive domain and policy making of the Bank

Interference in such matters by the High Court under constitutional jurisdiction was not warranted

No vested right of Bank employee was involved in the matter of promotion or the Rules determining their eligibility or fitness

High Court had no jurisdiction to strike down the policy of the employer-Bank

Policy framed by the Bank for promotion of regular employees was based on criteria viz. seniority, service in grade, professional qualification, performance relating of last three years and educational qualification

Petitioners-employees had to meet all the conditions to claim consideration for promotion

Employer -bank had to decide whether employees had met the criteria set forth for promotion or not

Employees had failed to point out any malice on the part of the Bank to warrant interference in the promotion matter under constitutional jurisdiction

Nothing was on record that policy framed by the Bank had infringed Fundamental Rights of the employees

Competent authority had jurisdiction to enhance qualification of certain posts

No vested/Fundamental Right could be claimed in seniority/promotion case as promotion would depend upon various factors which required consideration for promotion of the employees

Criteria for promotion was eligibility and fitness which could not be claimed as a matter of right

Eligibility would relate to terms and conditions of service and fitness was a subjective evaluation made on the basis of objective criteria

Competent authority had to make appointment, determine seniority, eligibility, fitness and promotion and other ancillary matters with regard to terms and conditions of employees as prescribed under the Rules

Selection, promotion and transfer of employees of Bank except that of President and decision as to their remuneration and benefits had to be made by the President of the Bank in accordance with the criteria and policies determined by the Board of Directors

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner through present petition had highlighted his grievance which had already been set at naught by the High Court; he could not be allowed to raise the same ground which had already been taken by him in the earlier round of litigation

Petitioner had failed to make out case for proforma promotion after retirement under the Bank policy

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner/employee being in employment of Bank filed appeal before the President and Chief Executive of the Bank against termination of his service which appeal was not responded

Grievance petition of the employee was dismissed on the ground that he had not brought his grievance to the notice of his employer and departmental appeal could not be treated as grievance notice

Validity

Petitioner could take his grievance to the National Industrial Relations Commission only if his employer had failed to communicate a decision within a period of fifteen days of the submission of grievance notice or if employer had given a decision against him

Filing of grievance notice was an essential pre-requisite for filing grievance petition before National Industrial Relations Commission

Procedure prescribed under S. 33 of Industrial Relations Act, 2012 had not been followed as no grievance notice had been served

Petitioner's offer for appointment was issued by Group Executive Human Resource of the Bank

Even departmental appeal was not addressed to the petitioner's employer but to the President of the Bank

Employee could not brought on record any service agreement signed by the President of the Bank

Essential pre-requisites of issuing grievance notice to the employer before filing a grievance petition before National Industrial Relations Commission had not been satisfied in the present case

Forums below were correct in dismissing the petitioner's grievance petition

No jurisdictional infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned orders

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Contention of petitioners-employees was that they were entitled for additional compensation as per judgment passed by the Supreme Court

Validity

Respondent Bank agreed for payment of additional compensation to the retrenched employees

Supreme Court had passed the order on the basis of settlement between the parties

Said judgment of Supreme Court was not a judgment in rem but was in personam, therefore was attracted to the present case

Petitioners-employees had already received compensation after retrenchment order passed by the Bank

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Supreme Court disposed of petition for leave to appeal in presence of the parties that Bank should consider the case of employee independently and if he was not satisfied with the order of the Bank, he should approach the Supreme Court for redressal of his grievance by getting his appeal revived in accordance with Rules

Employee approached the Bank through representation but same was not decided and he filed grievance petition before the Labour Court but same was adjourned sine die

Validity

Supreme Court order which was passed in presence and agreement of the parties being mandatory could not be ignored by the Labour Court as well as Labour Appellate Tribunal

Both the courts below had rightly advised the employee to approach the Supreme Court

Order passed in presence of the parties was binding upon them being order in personam

Matter was heard by the Supreme Court in presence of the parties after their agreement and if employee had any grievance from the Bank or was not satisfied with the Bank he should have got appeal before Supreme Court revived

Where grievance was an individual grievance and related to satisfaction of claim in full or part, rights of the parties thereunder would assume finality and take the colour of "past and closed transaction"

Labour Court had rightly adjourned sine die the grievance petition due to Supreme Court order

No illegality was committed by the courts below while passing the impugned judgment

Courts below had followed the orders of the Supreme Court in letter and spirit

High Court could not interfere in the matter where courts below had followed the orders of the Supreme Court in stricto sensu being binding upon them

Courts below had rightly declined to hear the grievance of employee petitioner due to the forum given by the Supreme Court

Employee still had the remedy to approach the Supreme Court to revive his appeal if his grievance had not been redressed

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Rules, 1973 were statutory in nature and petitioner/employee was governed by the said Rules

Petitioner/employee had right to file an application for review or appeal under R.40(1) of National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Rules, 1973 after dismissal from service before the Central Board of the Bank

Rule 40 of National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Rules, 1973 did not state that the appeal/review could only be filed if disciplinary proceedings had been initiated under the said Rules, rather it provided a right to every aggrieved employee to approach the competent authority for his grievance

Petitioner had neither availed such remedy nor had filed appeal or review against impugned order

Petitioner could only invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court if impugned memorandum of dismissal was ex facie unlawful and/or if the Authority passing order had no jurisdiction to pass such order

Petitioner had alternate remedy to approach the Central Board of the Bank for appeal or review

Finding of fact recorded by the Disciplinary Committee could not be disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction

Impugned decision had been taken by the Bank without mentioning the provision of law or rules

Employee could not be reinstated under constitution without dilating upon the question of facts involved in the case

Constitutional petition was converted into appeal and was sent to the competent authority being the Central Board of the Bank for redressal of grievance of employee within eight weeks

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Bank had issued circular to the effect that encashment of privilege leave would only be granted to a maximum of 180 days at the time of retirement subject to availability

Petitioner employee sought direction for encashment of unutilized frozen privilege leaves in the light of said circular

Contention of the Bank was that petitioner employee after retirement had received the total retirement benefits inclusive of encashment of 180 days privilege leave

Validity

Petitioner employee having availed the benefit of circular (got encashment of 180 days), could not be allowed to re-agitate a past and closed transaction

Petitioner had not challenged the alleged circular within reasonable time

Constitutional petition was hit by the principle of laches

Employee was not entitled to any other relief

No illegality or irregularity was pointed out in the findings recorded by the Single Judge of High Court

Intra court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Intra court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Subsequently after a lapse of three years from retirement, plaintiff filed suit for damages against the Bank claiming that his pensionary benefits and other dues had not been properly calculated by the Bank

During the period of three years between his retirement and filing of suit, the plaintiff neither raised any objection, nor claimed any right or dues in relation to his past service/retirement

Besides plaintiff could not satisfy the court regarding his claim of miscalculation of his pensionary benefits and other dues, and also failed to point out any anomaly in the statement submitted in court by the Bank which contained details of all the dues paid to the plaintiff by the Bank

Three Courts below had rejected the plaintiff's claim (by accepting the Bank's application for rejection of plaint under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.)

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused accordingly.

Detail of his job description, as assigned by the Bank, included; Floor Time Management, who would make sure that ATM Card/PIN record was properly kept, timely delivered to customers; and destroyed undelivered Cards/PIN at the given time frame; assist and guide the customer for issuance of cheque books; ATM balance confirmation certificates, duplicate statement of accounts; ensure adequate inventory of customer interface form/applications and product brochures maintained at the branch of Bank; conduct monthly service huddle in the branch; ensure overall cleanness and pleasant atmosphere in the branch premises; proper maintenance of notice board and ensure cleanliness and proper care of the server room

All said responsibilities were indicative of the fact that those were the duties manually performed by the employer; and not of a managerial, or administrative task

Employee, did not exercise any power of hire and fire over all of the employees

Job description of the employee, clearly elucidated that he fell within the definition of "worker and workman".

Contention of employee was that despite fulfilment of eligibility criteria he was not called for interview for promotion

Validity

Government servant could not ask for issuance of call letter for interview for promotion after his retirement

Retirement from service did not debar from promotion but when employee had not appeared for interview or was not called for the same by the competent authority to adjudge his eligibility for promotion, he could not claim vested right in his favour with just announcement of promotion policy

Nothing was available in the promotion policy that all persons eligible on that day would stand promoted rather same was subject to suitability and availability of vacant posts

Nothing was on record as to whether any post for promotion of employee was available at the relevant time and present employee was only suitable person for promotion against the said post

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of Bank was that constitutional petition was not maintainable against the Bank, being a private organization having no statutory rules

Validity

Constitutional petition would not lie against the bodies having no statutory Rules of service

Respondent-Bank, a banking limited company was not the creation of any statute

Services of employees of respondent-Bank were governed by its own manual

If a private authority had adopted any government law for its internal affairs even then by such adoption of laws it could not be said that the employees of said authority would be governed by a statute

Petitioner although was proceeded under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 but it could not be said that he was proceeded under the statute

Petitioner could not file constitutional petition to seek enforcement of terms and conditions of his service against the Bank

Constitutional petition was dismissed being not maintainable.

Employer (Bank) being a trans-provincial establishment, employee could seek remedy by filing appropriate proceedings before National Industrial Relations Commission.

Any doubt or suspicion with regard to activities and business of Bank and dishonesty of its employees would shake confidence of its customers resulting in ruination of its business, thus in such circumstances awarding of termination from service was not a wrongful act and subsequent deposit of misappropriated money would not constitute a mitigating circumstance in favour of employee

Banking business was one of trust reposed by public at large and Bank could not afford breach of trust by retaining in service people who were involved in breach of trust.

Plea raised by Bank was that Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could not be invoked as service Rules of Bank were non-statutory

Validity

Petitioners were employees of Bank of Punjab who accepted employment on the basis of service contracts and had agreed to be governed by service regulations/Human Resource Manual of the Bank

Human Resource Manual did not consist of statutory Rules nor it met settled criteria on the subject, to be termed as statutory Rules

Human Resource Manual was an internal document meant to govern terms and conditions of employees of the bank

Relationship between petitioners and the bank was governed by principle of "Master and Servant"

Any grievance of petitioners arising out of alleged violation of their service contract/Human Resource Manual was not amenable to interference by High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction

Petitioners could approach a Court of plenary jurisdiction for redressal of their grievance

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Findings recorded by Inquiry Officer on question of fact could not be interfered through constitutional jurisdiction.

Promotion of employees in service of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (Bank) prior to the promulgation of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (Reorganization and Conversion) Ordinance, 2002

Promotion Committee of Bank not recommending promotion of such employees on the basis that they failed to meet the threshold required for promotion under the applicable Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited Staff Regulations, 2005, and that their promotion was not governed by the Agricultural Development Bank (Staff Service) Regulations, 1961 or by Promotion Policy, 1999

Employees challenged recommendations of Promotion Committee by filing constitutional petition before High Court claiming that their promotion was governed by Agricultural Development Bank (Staff Service) Regulations, 1961 and Promotion Policy, 1999 and not by the Regulations of 2005

Maintainability

Contention of Bank was that even if employees in question were governed by Agricultural Development Bank (Staff Service) Regulations, 1961 and Promotion Policy, 1999, the same were non-statutory, therefore, constitutional petition would not be maintainable

Validity

Section 6 of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (Reorganization and Conversion) Ordinance, 2002 provided two fold security to employees who were in service of the Bank prior to the promulgation of the said Ordinance: Firstly the employees of the Bank, prior to promulgation of said Ordinance, stood transferred and became employees of the Company, and secondly they were made subject to the same rules and regulations as were applicable to them before the promulgation of the said Ordinance

On account of S.6 of the said Ordinance, the previous Regulations relating to promotion of employees in question, i.e. Agricultural Development Bank (Staff Service) Regulations, 1961 and Promotion Policy, 1999, which were non-statutory, stood incorporated by way of legislative reference and thereby acquired a statutory status under the new dispensation and the employees acquired a legal right for their enforcement

Constitutional petition before High Court, filed against recommendations of Promotion Committee, would be maintainable in such circumstances

Appeal filed by Bank was dismissed accordingly.

Promotion of employees in service of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan ("Bank") prior to the promulgation of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (Re-organization and Conversion) Ordinance, 2002

Promotion Committee of Bank not recommending promotion of such employees on the basis that they failed to meet the threshold required for promotion under the applicable Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited Staff Regulations, 2005, and that their promotion was not governed by the Agricultural Development Bank (Staff Service) Regulations, 1961 or by Promotion Policy, 1999

Employees challenged recommendations of Promotion Committee by filing constitutional petition before High Court claiming that their promotion was governed by Agricultural Development Bank (Staff Service) Regulations, 1961 and Promotion Policy, 1999 and not by the Regulations of 2005

Maintainability

Contention of Bank was that even if employees in question were governed by Agricultural Development Bank (Staff Service) Regulations, 1961 and Promotion Policy, 1999, the same were non-statutory, therefore, constitutional petition would not be maintainable

Validity

Section 6 of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (Re-organization and Conversion) Ordinance, 2002 provided two fold security to employees who were in service of the Bank prior to the promulgation of the said Ordinance: Firstly the employees of the Bank, prior to promulgation of said Ordinance, stood transferred and became employees of the Company, and secondly they were made subject to the same rules and regulations as were applicable to them before the promulgation of the said Ordinance

On account of S.6 of the said Ordinance, the previous Regulations relating to promotion of employees in question, i.e. Agricultural Development Bank (Staff Service) Regulations, 1961 and Promotion Policy, 1999, which were non-statutory, stood incorporated by way of legislative reference and thereby acquired a statutory status under the new dispensation and the employees acquired a legal right for their enforcement

Constitutional petition before High Court, filed against recommendations of Promotion Committee, would be maintainable in such circumstances

Appeal filed by Bank was dismissed accordingly.

Employee was appointed as cashier and was declared a management cadre officer, (Assistant Manager and Manager operations) and was also given power of attorney, whereby he was authorized to do all transactions on behalf of the Bank; and such power/authority had not to be given to a "worker" or "workman"

Grievance application under S.41 of Balochistan Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2010, was mandatorily to be issued by the employee himself or through shop steward, or trade union, was issued by his counsel which was in violation of S.41 of the Ordinance

Grievance application filed by the employee, was not maintainable, in circumstances

Contention of the employee was that as no provision having been mentioned in memo. of appeal filed by the employers, was not competent

Validity

Omission to mention the provision under which appeal had been filed or wrong mentioning of provision was not an illegality, whereof the appeal be dismissed

Contention was repelled, in circumstances

Appeal was allowed, impugned order passed by Lower Court, was set aside, in circumstances.

Pursuant to notification dated 26-2-2004, petitioner bank was privatized and its control was transferred to a private entity

Respondent filed constitutional petition on 25-11-2008 seeking payment of service dues to which he was not entitled

Contention of petitioner/bank was that since bank was privatized in the year 2004, it was not amenable to constitutional jurisdiction of High Court; and that constitutional petition was not maintainable

Leave to appeal was granted to consider law point raised by the petitioner; with direction to decide the matter on the available record.

Employee sought quashment of fresh inquiry on the ground that non-completion of the same within the period prescribed by the Service Tribunal vitiated the proceedings

Validity

Directions for the performance of official duties within a particular time were generally construed as directory and not mandatory unless expressly provided otherwise

Many statutes contained time frame for the completion of proceedings but that did not mean that non-completion of the same would have the effect of vitiating the proceedings

Constitutional petition was disposed of directing the bank to pay back-benefits to the petitioner and to complete inquiry expeditiously.

Any slight doubt or suspicion with regard to activities and business of Bank and dishonesty of its employees would shake confidence of its customers resulting in ruination of its business

Once such charge was proved against employee, irrespective of quantum of amount, the Bank would lose its confidence or faith in him, thus, awarding him punishment of dismissal from service would not be wrong

Any subsequent deposit would not constitute a mitigating circumstance in favour of employee to allow him reinstatement in service of Bank

Principles.

Labour Court upheld such findings of Enquiry Officer, but reinstated employee in service by treating such penalty to be harsh

Validity

Working and functioning of Bank depended on mutual trust between Banker and customer and required display of a very high degree of integrity and honesty of its employees, in absence whereof customers would lose their faith and trust in Banks, which would adversely affect their working and business

Punishment of dismissal from service was not unwarranted or harsh or disproportionate to such charge

Impugned order of reinstatement of employee by the Labour Court was set aside in circumstances.

Powers of Labour Court, Appellate Court and employer stated.

Setting aside of such penalty by Labour Court on account of inaction on the part of Bank to initiate proceedings against co-accused/employee

Validity

Such inaction would not be a ground for exonerating or absolving employee from such charge

Impugned judgment being arbitrary and fanciful was set aside in circumstances.

Voluntary Separation. Scheme offered by the Bank to its employees was a purely contractual matter between the Bank and its employees

Said Scheme, in the present case, was offered to the employee/petitioner which was accepted by him as a full and final settlement

Employer Bank had no statutory rules which governed the terms and conditions of service of office employees which indicated that the petitioner did not have a clear legal right and a question of breach, therefore, did not arise

Petitioner, while accepting the final payment of the Scheme, made no reservations, dispute or grievance as to the amount that was given, thereby indicating that he was satisfied with the final payment

Issue of the amount calculated on the last pay drawn appeared to be an afterthought, which was reflected in the delay of raising same before the competent forum (1-1/2 years later)

Matter related to the dispute of facts, calculation based upon service benefits and so on a concluded contract and was not a suit for recovery of monies for which there was another forum available to the petitioner

Relationship of master and servant was also drawn here and the petitioner could also seek relief before another forum

Remedy being not available before the High Court, constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.