Find a Lawyer

Case No. 24 (260) of 1983, decided on 18th June, 1984.

‑‑‑Retirement‑Premature retirement‑Bank employee office‑bearer of trade Union retired before superannuation age under r. 17 (1) (a) of National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1980 Transfer challenged as unfair labour practice due to Union activi ties‑Plea that Bank rules were not statutory and provisions of S. O. 12 (3) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were applicable and Wage Commission Awards, 1975 and 1978 did not confer any power on Bank to make premature retirement‑Prima facie case, in circum stances, held, existed and ad interim stay order issued by National Industrial Relations Commission restraining respondent‑Bank from retiring petitioner pending decision on main petition‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 22‑A (8) (g).

Wasi Ahmad, Representative for Petitioner.

Mamoon A. Kazi for Respondent.

Date of bearing: 18th Juan, 1984,

S. Islam Hussain an employee in the National Bank of Pakistan has roved an application under section 22‑A (8) (g) of Industrial Relations ordinance, 1969 for the prevention of the commission of unfair labour practice against National Bank of Pakistan. The petitioner who is the secretary General of National Bank of Pakistan Staff Union and is also the Secretary General of National Bank of Pakistan Employees Federation, has alleged that on account of his trade Union activities, he was periodically and repeatedly victimized by the respondent‑Bank who have now sent him on forced retirement which shall take effect in June, 1984 vide their memo. dated 28th May, 1983 which reads as under :‑‑

Mr. S. Islam Hussain, Officer Grade‑III is advised that in terms of rule 17 (1) (a) of the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1980, he is hereby retired from the Bank's service.

He has been granted 365 days leave preparatory to retirement with effect from 11^th June, 1983, as permissible under the Rules. He will thus stand retired from the Bank's service with effect from the date of expiry of leave preparatory to retirement granted to him i. e. 9th June, 1984 (close of business).

In case he does not wish to avail the leave preparatory to retirement he will stand retired from service with effect from 9^th June, 1983 (close of business).

(Sd.)

M. NAWAZ KHAN

PRESIDENT."

Mr. Islam Hussain, petitioner, has challenged the legality of the above order and has also moved an application praying that pending decision of this case the effect and operation of the impugned notice of retirement dated 28th May, 1983 may be stayed. An interim order was passed on 6^th May, 1984 directing the respondents to maintain status quo. This order came up for confirmation on 17^th May, 1984. .

2. The learned representative Mr. Wasi Ahmad appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1980 under which the impugned order has been passed has no statutory force and as such the order passed under Rule 17 (1) (d) of the said Rules is against Order 12 (3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Employment) Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 which lays down that the services of the workmen shall not be termi nated nor shall a workman be removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service except by an order in writing which shall explicitly slat the reasons for the action taken.

3. Mr. Wasi Ahmad, representative; submitted that no reasons have been given in the impugned order which is bad in law. Memoon A. Kazi, learned counsel for the respondent Bank contended that even if the said West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance is applicable, the service rules shall take effect, but he failed to show how they can take effect. Infect he conceded that W. P. (Standing Orders) Ordinance is applicable on the respondent‑Bank. He, however, contended that Islam Hussain is not a worker and as such neither Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 nor Standing Orders Ordinance, 1961 is applicable on the petitioner. Mr. Wasi Ahmad, contended that the petitioner is a worker and that this point can only be decided after evidence is led by both the parties in support of their contention. I agree with the learned representative. Mr. Wasi Ahmad, representing the petitioner that mere designation of an employee cannot determine the status unless the nature of duties performed by him are taken into consideration. This is also the view of the Wage Commission Award, 1975 as contained in paras. 53, 54 and 55.

4. Mr. Wasi Ahmad, representative for the petitioner also submitted that retirement age of the employees in the Bank is 60 years according to the Wage Commission Award of 1978 and that the Wage Commission Awards of 1972 and 1978 do not confer any power on the Bank to frame Rules enabling them to send the workers on premature retirement.

5. I am satisfied that a prima facie case exists for the confirmation of the prohibitory order passed by me on 6th May, 1984 and accordingly I confirm the same and direct the respondent not to retire or remove the petitioner from service till the decision of the main application under section 22‑A (8) (g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

A. E.

Prohibitory order confirmed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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