Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑88 of 1977, decided on 13th July 1977.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑

‑‑ S. 1(4)(c)‑Employees of Bank‑Governed by Statutory Rules of Bank‑Not within ambit of Ordinance‑Termination simpliciter in accordance with Bank rules‑Not open to interference by Labour Court.

Hameed M. Siddiqui for Appellant.

Samiullah Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 6th July 1977.

This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application made by the appellant under section 25‑A, I. R. O.

2. The appellant was in the permanent employment of National Bank of Pakistan which is the respondent in the present case. His service was terminated w. e. f. 25th August 1975 without any service of notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof. He served a grievance notice upon the res pondent on 9th February, 1976 alleging that on 28th July, 1975 he was arrested and detained in the Central Prison, Karachi in connection with Trade Union activities and remained under detention till 9th January, 1976. His pay for the month of August, 1975 was not credited into his account and this came to his knowledge on 9th February, 1976. So he sent a letter dated 11th February, 1976 and he was informed that his service had been terminated w. e. f. 25th August, 1975. So after the service of the grievance he approached the Labour Court.

3. The application was contested and it was pleaded that he was not a permanent workman and his service was terminated on 25th August, 1975 in terms of the bye‑laws and Statutory Rules of Service of the National Bank of Pakistan, 1973. The application of the Standing Orders Ordinance was disputed.

4. Both the parties filed their affidavits and were cross‑examined. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court entertained the view that Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable in view of subsec tion (4) (c) to section 1 of West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, in view of the fact that the Bank has its own Statutory Rules; consequently, the termination of service was not illegal. Against this decision the present appeal had been filed.

5. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It was conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance were not applicable by virtue of subsection (4) (c) to section 1 of the Ordinance as Statutory Rules had been framed and award by the Wage Commission was given. After making this concession he proceeded to say that Discipline Rules appearing at pages 158 to 160 had been framed by the Wage Commission which was applicable to all the banks and according to these Rules the appellant could not be terminated without an inquiry. I find no force in this contention. The perusal of the Discipline Rules clearly shows that these are applicable only when an employee has to be penalised for misconduct whereas the present case is of simple termination of service as is evident from the order of termination which reads as under:‑‑

"Dear Sir,

Termination or Employment

Under instruction of the competent authority, we have to inform you that in terms of Section III rule 15 of the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1973, your services are hereby terminated with immediate effect. You will be paid salary in lieu of due notice. You may collect your dues including notice pay from the Finance Division, Head Office, Karachi.

Yours faithfully, (Sd.)

Senior Vice‑President, (Personnel)

6. The learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out anything in the award of Wage Commission debarring the Management from ordering simple termination of service. The service of the appellant was terminated under rule 15(2) of the National Bank of. Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1973 and there is nothing in the award of the Wage Commission that this Rule was superceded or altered in any manner. Consequently, that Rule was still applicable. The learned counsel for the appellant also referred me to para. 302 of the award of the Wage Commission, but this, too, is of no avail as it simply says that the decision of the Wage Commission shall be binding on the employers and employees concerned in terms of section 38(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. I have gone through section 38(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and there in nothing to support the plea raised on behalf of the appellant.

7. In result the appeal is dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.