' Two sets of revision applications are being disposed by this single order as common question of law is involved therein.
2. Revision Applications Nos. 52 of 2003, 53 of 2003, 54 of 2003 and 55 of 2003 arise out of a similar order, dated 17-1-2001, in Applications Nos. 62 of 1996, 65 of 1996, 64 of 1996 and 63 of 1996 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad, whereby learned Labour Court dismissed the application moved by the applicants for deciding preliminary legal issues before finally deciding the matter on merits.
3. Revision Applications Nos. 49 of 2003. 50 of 2003 and 51 of 2003 are directed against a consolidated order, dated 13-2-2002, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabadjin Applications Nos. 6 of 1997, 551 of 1997 and 47 of 1998 whereby the learned Labour Court overruled the objections raised by the applicant with regard. To maintainability of the grievance petitions and the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.
4. The facts of the case, in nutshell which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of these revision applications are, that the respondents are admittedly the employees of the applicant viz. Muslim Commercial Bank Limited. Their services were terminated by the Bank. Being aggrieved of their termination they individually filed grievance petitions before the Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad.
The applicants/bank filed the written-statement and also raised legal objections with regard to maintainability of the petitions and the jurisdiction of the Court.
5. The main legal objection taken before the Labour Court was that the applicants were employed in different branches of the bank wherein less than 20 workers were employed. Due to this reason, the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968, were not applicable thus the protection provided to the workmen under the said law was not available to the respondents/workers, Besides, other corollary objections also were raised. But those also admittedly required recording of evidence.
6. It seems that an application was moved on behalf of the applicant/bank before the Labour Court praying therein that before deciding the cases on merits Labour Court must, first decide the legal objections. Such applications moved by the applicant/bank appear to have been dismissed .
By two different orders mentioned hereinabove. It was however observed by the Labour Court that the legal objections taken by the applicant/bank shall be decided while deciding the main case. It will be pertinent to note that at least in five grievance petitions the evidence was duly recorded and the matters were ripe for final adjudication.
7. Being aggrieved of those orders the revision applications were filed before the erstwhile Labour Appellate Tribunal. However since the Labour Appellate. Tribunal ceased to exist, consequent upon the promulgation of Industrial Relation Ordinance, 2002, therefore, these revisions applications were filed before this Court.
8. Before proceeding with the matter learned counsel for the applicant moved an application for adjournment.
9. Vide order, dated 10-10-2003, which was passed in presence of counsel for both the parties. Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani, learned counsel for the applicant requested for permission to allow him to submit written arguments on the question of maintainability or otherwise of these revision applications as he was to leave for Saudi Arabia next Friday. Accordingly, the request was allowed, the matters were adjourned to 17-10-2003 and in the meanwhile the proceedings before the Labour Court were stayed till further orders. On 30-10-2003 the matters were taken up and the arguments of Mr. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, Advocate for the respondent were partly heard, as the arguments submitted by learned counsel for the applicant were already available on record in pursuance of this Court's order, dated 10-10-2003. The matters were however, adjourned at the request of Mr. Wazarat Hussain counsel. For the applicant with a clear observation that no further adjournment shall be fought.
10. Today an application for adjournment has been moved on the ground that Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani, Advocate has proceeded for Umrah and that he has been granted general adjournment from all High Court Benches up to 23-11-2003.
11. The application for adjournment prima facie appears to be motivated, and is meant to protract the proceedings. As observed in the earlier part of the order Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani Advocate was granted, permission to file written arguments only on the ground that he was leaving for Saudi Arabia and would not be available. In such circumstances the proceedings before the Labour Court were stayed. The order of the Labour Court, which is impugned in this revision application, was passed on 17-1-2001. It seems that the matter has protracted for a period of more than .Two and half years. The Application for adjournment being without merit dismissed.
12. Apart from perusing the written arguments already available on the record, the oral arguments addressed by Mr. Wazarat Hussain have been heard and the case-law has been taken into consideration.
13. The main objection raised on behalf of the applicant in the case is that each branch of Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. Is a separate entity and since less than 20 workmen were employed in the respective branches where the applicants were employed, therefore, the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were not attracted. Thus the respondents/employees were not competent to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The grievance petitions being not maintainable, were liable to be dismissed.
14. It is quite concerning to note that indeed this facial objection was previously agitated by- applicant Muslim Commercial Bank Limited before a learned Division Bench of this Court with full force and vehemence. The said contention of the applicant/bank was thoroughly examined by the learned Division Bench in the case of Nazir Ahmed and another v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd.
And others reported in (2004 PLC 1) which found it to fanciful, irrational and devoid of wisdom, thus repelled the same being untenable.
15. I can do no better than to reproduce the relevant paragraph from the above cited case-law:-- "(24) It is, therefore, crystal clear that Muslim Commercial Bank is a company transacting the business of banking in Pakistan through its principal office and its hundreds of branches all over Pakistan established with the permission of the State Bank of Pakistan under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962. The branches no matter where situated in Pakistan and irrespective of the number of workmen employed therein whether 20 or less are all instrumentalities of MCB and operate as a single unit both in the sense the term bank or banking company used in the business/banking circle and trade and under the provisions of the Banking Ordinance. To reiterate, no branch of MCB is an independent legal entity or an independent commercial establishment as defined in the Standing Orders but every branch is an integral and inseparable part and instrumentality of MCB which is a banking company operating as one institution irrespective of the number of workmen employed therein. Consequently, the provisions of the Standing Orders are applicable to all workmen employed by MCB whether at its principal office or in any branch where less than 20 workmen are employed or were so employed on any day during" the preceding twelve months because the total number of workmen employed in MCB as one unit are and have always been more than twenty-.
' Accordingly, not only that petitions filed by the workmen were allowed but they were also granted special costs.
16. When confronted with the above decision Mr. Wazarat Ali having been caught-up in the web has no room to escape and had to concede. In view of the elaborate verdict of a learned Division Bench of this Court exactly on the same point, the revision applications are liable to be dismissed and accordingly stand dismissed vide two short order, dated 7-11-2003, separately passed in the above-cited revision applications.
17. In Revision Applications Nos. 49 of 2003, 50 of 2003 and 51 of 2003 which are in relation to grievance Petitions Nos. 6 of 1997, 551 of 1997 and 47 of 1998 learned Labour Court is directed to proceed with the case on day-to-day basis and give its findings on legal as well as factual issues raised before it and decide the petitions on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Adjournment if granted only in absolutely inevitable circumstances should not exceed beyond two days. The petitions shall be finally disposed of by 19th December, 2003.
' While in Revision Applications Nos. 52 of 2003, 53 of 2003, 54 of 2003 and 55 of 2003 which are related to grievance Petitions Nos. 62 of 1996, 65 of 1996, 64 of 1996 and 63 of 1996, the evidence has already been recorded, the Trial Court is directed to decide the petitions by 10th December, 2003, after hearing the parties.
18. In view of the fact that the respondents had to suffer the agony of protracted litigation and have to sustain monetary losses also as indicated in the short order, the applicants are saddled with a cost of. Rs.3,000 each in R.As. Nos. 49 of 2003, 50 of 2003 and 51 of 2003, and a cost of Rs.10,000 each in R.As. Nos. 52 of 2003, 53 of 2003, 54 of 2003 and 55 of 2003.
19. It hardly needs to be reiterated that the Advocates are the officers of the Court and are required to provide unbiased, fair and independent assistance to the Courts of law in order to enable the Courts to arrive at just, proper and legally valid 'conclusions, as the paramount consideration before the Courts and the lawyers is and should be to administer, even handed justice. Though it is a terrible irony, yet a hard reality to express that 'Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani, Advocate who had filed these revision applications on behalf of Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., himself appeared in the case of Nazir Ahmed (supra) and represented the applicant/Bank which was heard on 23rd and 30th October, 2001, in which the same plea was repelled. Learned Advocate obviously concealed from this Court the fact that an authoritative decision was given by a Divison Bench of this Court. It was expected from the learned Advocate to have outrightly made a statement to that effect and ought to have withdrawn these revision applications on this ground but unfortunately this was not done, rather the matters were perfidiously pursued in a zestful manner.
20. Mr. Wazarat Ali learned counsel for the applicant/Bank who is present had no explanation to offer, in this regard except to repent. Thus is openly expressed penitence and remorsed in the open Court. There is unrebutable presumption that this was being done purposely to mislead the Court in a deliberate and cautious move to obtain a possibly perverse and wrong decision. Obviously by acting in such ridiculous and devastating manner the duty towards the Court, rule of law, dispensation of justice and the society as a whole was distressfully registered and blinked away.
This evidently reflects upon the conduct of learned Advocates representing the Bank. The least, they deserve, is a note on caution.
21. Orders. Applicant Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. Evidently did not act prudently: It was responsible for letting itself to be pushed to pursue frivolous and senseless litigation. The officer(s) responsible for this mindless misadventure whereby the Bank had to suffer the embarrassment and sustain colossal loss have to be taken to task. Some senior executive at the helm of affairs of the Bank must take prompt action in the right direction.
' These are the reasons for the short orders.