Find a Lawyer

Anneal No SUK‑594 of 1983, decided on 16th January, 1986

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

‑‑‑S.O. 12(3)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969). S.25‑A‑ --Termination of service‑‑Bank employee‑‑Nationalised Banks not ousted from ambit of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, '1968 and provisions of said Ordinance, held, override Rules of Bank in respect of termination of employee‑ --Explicit reasons must be recorded for termination‑‑Bank rules providing for termination without assigning any reason, held, were harsh and against canons of natural justice.

‑‑‑ 'Services no longer required', not a reason for termination‑ Termination of service of Bank employee with 14 years service purportedly under Rules of Bank, stating that "services no longer required", held, would be against canons of natural justice and violative of S.O. 12(5‑)‑ Termination order set aside by Appellate Tribunal awarding re instatement with 50 back benefits.

Hassan Hameedi for Appellant.

Obaidur Rehman for Respondents.

Date of hearing: is" October, 1985.

Appellant, Manzoor Ali Shah has filed this appeal against the order of Sind Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur, who decided that the grievance petition of Manzoor Ali Shah under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, was not maintainable. This order is, dated 26‑9‑1983.

2. The facts are that the appellant was appointed on 22‑6‑1967, as a clerk in Standard Bank. After nationalization of the Banks, the Standard Bank was merged with Habib Bank. On 21‑9‑1976, the appellant was promoted as an officer. In the month of July, 1981, he was posted at Gaji Khuhawar Branch of Larkana Zone of the Habib Bank. It is alleged by the appellant that when he was working in Gaji Khuhawar Branch, he was pressurized by Mr. Imdad Ali Memon, Assistant Vice- President and Zonal Chief to submit false report against Noor Muhammad Pathan, who was also posted at Gaji Khuhawar Branch. However, the wish of Zonal Chief, was not acceded to by the appellant, therefore, Zonal Chief, Imdad Ali Memon bore grudge against the appellant. On 30‑8‑1981, he was transferred and that he was also informed that his power of attorney was withdrawn. In the Zonal Office of Habib Bank, Larkana, he was placed to do clerical job i.e., preparing DD and TT forms and other miscellaneous work like filling in various forms which was the exclusive duty of a clerk. He also used to do counting of cash which is the duty of a Cashier. The appellant worked at Bunder Road Branch of Habib Bank where he was doing mainly the clerical work. On 22‑11‑1981, he was served with the order of termination of services under section 6 of Habib Bank Limited Rules and Regulation. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a departmental appeal on 3‑12‑‑1981, which was rejected on 14‑12‑1981. He, thereafter filed a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, before the Labour Court

3. The respondents replied briefly that the Zonal Chief was never annoyed with the appellant. That the appellant remained absent and as a result of it, the Branch remained closed for one day as it is two‑men Branch. His power of attorney was cancelled on 15‑11‑1981 with effect from 11‑11‑1981 and not from 30‑8‑1981. The duties performed by him at the Zonal Office were the same which he used to perform at Gaji Khuhawar Branch where he was posted as a Manager.

4. The appellant in support of his case has filed his own affidavit Exh.3 and the respondents, in support of their contentions have filed their counter‑affidavit of Mr. S. Bashrat Hussain Shah as Exh.4. I have heard the counsel of the parties.

5. At the outset it may be stated that the termination of the appellant was 'termination simplicitor' and .is said to be under section 6 of Habib Bank Limited Rules and Regulations. The section 6 is as under:‑

"Every employee shall be bound to give one calendar month's notice in writing i. e. ending with the end of the following calendar month. If he desires to discontinue his services. The Bank, however, shall be entitled to dispense with the services of any employee at any time for wilful negligence, disobedience or dishonesty without any notice and in such case the employee shall be entitled to receive his pay only for the period actually worked and he shall have no claim to any further pay or to any pay in lieu of notice in any other case, one month's pay in lieu of notice will be paid.

6. It is also to be noted that the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 are very much applicable to the Nationalized Banks and as yet our High Court has not ousted out the application of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. In comparison and the contrast of Standing Order 12 (3) and section 6 of Habib Bank Rules and Regulations, the Standing Order 12 (3) is very much applicable in the instant case. The cogent reasons are got to be given for the termination of the service of the appellant specially when his service is from 1967. The summary termination of a person who had served the Bank for a such long time is not warranted both under section 6 of the Habib Bank Rules and Regulations or the Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Habib Bank Rules and Regulations also contemplate if the appellant was negligent or has misbehaved, then, his services may be terminated as contemplated by section 6 or the relevant rules. But, Standing Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 contemplates that his services may not be terminated unless specific reasons are shown thereof. The termination order, dated 11‑11‑1981 is as under:‑

Dear Sir,

You are hereby informed that your services are no longer required by the Bank and as such the same are hereby terminated with immediate effect in terms of clause 6 of Rules and Regulations of the Bank. You will be paid one month's salary in lieu of notice.

We reserve all our rights to recover Bank's dues and other liabilities, if any, either from , you or from your guarantor.

7. If the above termination order is analysed and seen properly, it has assigned no reasons for the termination of service as is required by Standing Order 12 (3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The Standing Order 12 (3) is‑as under:--

"12(3) Termination of employment.‑‑The services of a workman shall not be terminated nor shall a workman be removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. In case a workman is aggrieved by the termination of his services or removal, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal, he must may take action in accordance with the provisions of section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969) and thereupon the provisions of the said section shall apply as they apply to the redress of an individual grievance.

8. The word 'no longer' is no reason for termination of his service., Therefore, the termination order violates the Standing Order 12 (3) of l the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Reverting to section 6 of the Habib Bank B Rules and Regulations, the rule 6 is very harsh as it gives no opportunity to the defaulter or to the employee to say something in defence. It is against all the cannons of natural justice, whether the appellant is a worker or is an officer, he could not be dealt with any, such a stimmar yA7 manner and is plucked like a carrot and 'thrown out.

9. The above action of the respondent Bank is neither proper nor condusive to natural justice. This strengthens the case of the appellant C that he was removed on account of something lurking in the minds of his superior. Although, the superior official will not ask his subordinate to report against Noor Muhammad Pathan, but since the allegations are made by the appellant and why he should make the allegations if he was given some hearing and was heard as to what he has to say. There is yet a story narrated by the appellant that he wanted leave which was verbally granted by Zonal Chief. But, at the same time, he was suddenly transferred from Gaji Khuhawar Branch. No reason is given as to his transfer order or to his default or to his misbehaviour whatsoever.

10. The cancellation of the power of Attorney was so summary which shows the mind of the banking high official. The clerical job that he did upto the date of his termination and after his transfer from Gaji Khuhawar Branch ought to be considered. The Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, has the upper hand over the Rules and Regulations of the bank and the Rule No. 6 of Habib Bank Rules and Regulation. What agitates the mind of a judicial officer that the appellant has served as a clerk from 1967 and then promoted and then he was holding an important job that of a Manager for full 14 years and he should have been so summarily terminated without hearing or giving him the chance to be heard. against the cannons of natural justice:

11. In this case, it appears that injustice is done by violating the Standing Order 12 (3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and as such he deserves to be re‑instated. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the labour Court and order the re‑instatment of the appellant with immediate effect. As regards the back benefits, he be given 50% (fifty per cent ) of the back benefits.

A. E. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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