Abdul Hameed Dogar, J.--By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of above Civil Appeals Nos, 15 to 47, 203 to 207 of 2002 as well as Civil Petitions Nos, 744-L, 1828 to 1830 and 598-L of 2001 involving common question of law and facts.
2. The background leading to the filing of the instant matters are that respondents in Civil Appeals Nos, 15 to 471 of 2002. Civil Appeals Nos, 203 to 207 of 2002 and petitioners in Civil Petitions No, 744- L, 1828 to 1830 and 598-L of 2001 were selected either as Management Trainees in Talent Pool Scheme or on regular basis in Pakistan State Oil Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant-company") respectively whose particulars are given in the following Chart: S.No,Case No,Name of employeeDate of appointment as Management TraineeDate or Regular appointmentDate of terminationDate of Impugned
1.CA 15/02M. Akram Khan 27.7.1994 1.10..1996 19.9.1997 1.1,6.2001 2.CA 16/02M. Tahir Khan 1.12.1994 1.10.1996 19.9.1997-do- 3.CA 17/02Syed Ali Naqvi Shah21.10.199510.9.1996 19.9.1997-do- - 4.CA 18/02M. Farmanullah Khali26.7.1995
20. 8. 1997-do-
5. CA 19/02Fazal-e-Mansoor 5.9.1995 1.3.1996 19.9.1997-do- 6.CA 20/02Muhammad Tariq 5.3.1996 27.8.1997-do-
7. CA 21/02Nasir Ali Khan 2.7.1995 20.8.1997
8. CA 22/02Zafar Ali Arbab 1.6.1994 1.1.1996 19.9.1997-do- 9.CA 23/02Syed Raza Shah 1.8.1995 20.8.1997-do- 10.CA 24/02Mati Ullah Khan 1.1.1995 20.8.1997-do-
11. CA 25/02Arbab Najeebullah17.10.1995 20.8.1997-do- 12.CA 26/02Anwar Hayat 19.8.1996 15.9.1997-do- 13.CA 27/02Shoaib A. Khan 29.1.1995 1.10.1995 3.10.1997-do- 14.CA 28/02John George 18.9.1994 1.3.1996 19.9.1997-do- 15.CA 29/02Shahid Mahmood 13.2.1995 6.6.1996 19.9.1997-do- 16.CA 30/02M. Khalid Aslam 1.10.1994 16.10.1995 19.9.1997-do-
17. CA 31/02M. Irfan Sharif 25.1.1995 22.10.1995 19.9.1997-do- 18.CA 32/02Mansoor Zaman Khar.7.8.1994 16.8.1995 19.9.1997-do- 19.CA 33/02M. Sibtain Bhatti 7.9.1994 1.7.1996 19.9.1997-do- 20.CA 34/02Abdul Samad Khan16.3.1995 1.9.1996 19.9.1997-do- 21.CA 35/02Ishaq Hussain 2.7.1995 1.8.1996 20.9.1997-do- 22.CA 36/02Irfan A. Memon 10.6.1990 3.4.1994 19.9.1997-do- 23.CA 37/02Irshad A. Sheikh 1.7.1990 3.4.1994 19.9.1997-do- 24.CA 38/02Sikandar Ali Sahto 11.7.1994 1.3.1996 19.9.1997-do- 25.CA 39/02Shah Dost Bajkani 8.8.1990 3.4.1994 19.9.1997 do- 26.CA 40/02Abdul Jabbar Jamali16.1.1995 1.7.1996 19.9.1997-do- 27.CA 41/02Shabbir A. Samejo 2.5.1990 3.4.1994 19.9.1997-do- 28.CA 42/02Noor Mustafa Khuhro8.7.1990 3.4.1994 19.9.1997-do- 29.CA 43/02Allah Dino Mirani 15.12.199e 18.2.1996 19.9.1997-do- 30.CA 94/02Shafqat Hussain Mehesar5.9.1994 1.3.1996 19.9.1997-do-
31. CA 45/02Muhammad Sadiq Mirani2.5.1995 1.11.1996 20.9.1997-do- 32.CA 46/02Sajid Ahmed 17.8.1995 1.11.1996 19.9.1997-do- 33.CA 47/02Malik Ahsan Qadeer16.5.1994 16.7.1996 19.9.1997-do- 34.CA 203/02Munawar A.
Sheikh22.9.1994 28.8.199728.4.2001 35.CA 204/02Muhammad Azam7.3.1996 28.8.1997-do- 36.CA 205/02Hafeez-ur- Rehman3.11.1996 1.9.1997-do- 37.CA 206/02M. Nawaz Punwar 1.9.1994 19.9.1997-do- 38.CA 207/02Kamal Mustafa Magsi1.11.1996 19.9.1997-do- 39.CP 744- L/01Naeem Ullah Bhatti29.5.1995 20.8.199720.1.2001 40.CP.
1828/01Ikram Ullah Khan 29.5.1996 1.9.199714.6.2001 41.CP 1829/01Amjid Nasir Khan 3.10.1996 27.8.199828.4.2001 42.CP 1830/01Imran Mujtaba 3.10.1996 27.8.199828.4.2001 43.CP 598- L/01Saleem Ullah Khan7.11.1995 20.8.19977.2.2001
3. Having completed the training successfully, respondents/ petitioners were offered employment on regular basis with the Appellant-company in the Management cadre in different positions and were performing their duties to the entire satisfaction of their superiors. It was vide orders dated 20.8.1997 and 19.9.1997 the services of the respondents in the above mentioned Civil Appeals and that of the petitioners in the above mentioned Civil Petitions were terminated by the Appellant- company with immediate effect by giving one month's gross salary in lieu thereof.
4. Feeling aggrieved, they preferred departmental appeals which being un-responded, they invoked the jurisdiction of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") and filed service appeals which were dismissed vide judgments dated 19.8.1998, 17.10.1998, 4.11.1998, 10.4.1999 and 9.2.2000 respectively being barred by time with observation that they were not prosecuting their cases with due diligence but were pursuing their cases before wrong forum on account of mistaken advice. The respondents being dissatisfied, assailed the above mentioned judgments by filing petitions for leave to appeal in which leave was granted and the same were converted into Civil Appeals Nos, 378 and 388 to 393 of 1999. Before dealing with the merits of the case, the delay in filing of the appeals before the Tribunal was condoned by this Court It was vide judgment dated 27.11.2000, this Court allowed the above mentioned appeals and also converted several Civil Petitions Nos, 1707 of 1998, 23-K to 32-K of 1999, 75 of 1999, 947 to 972 of 1999, 1147 of 1999 and 129-K of 2000 into appeals, allowed the same, set aside the judgments and remanded the matters to the Tribunal to consider the question afresh as to whether the termination of the respondents' service was simpliciter or dismissal in the garb of termination which matter is reported as Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. v. Muhammad Tahir Khan and others (PLD 2001 SC 980).
5. Accordingly, all the above matters were heard by the Tribunal afresh and vide impugned judgments allowed the respective appeals and reinstated the respondents in service of Appellant- company with all back benefits. It was also held by the Tribunal that in the case the Appellant- company wanted to proceed against them for their appointment as political nominees and/or inefficiency then the Appellant-company would be at liberty to terminate their services after issuing meaningful show cause notices and personal hearings.
6. Appellant-company challenged the aforesaid judgments in this Court in various civil petitions for leave to appeal in which leave was granted by this Court vide orders dated 14.1.2002 and 16.1.2002.
7. We have heard Raja Haq Nawaz, and Mr. Muhammad Siddique Mirza, learned ASCs for the Appellant-company, M/s Abdul Hafeez Lakhoo, A.H. Gillani, Malik Noor Muhammad Awan and Ghulam Mahmood Qureshi learned ASCs for the respondents, in the above mentioned Civil Appeals and M/S Sh. Riazul Haq and Talat Farooq Sheikh in the above mentioned Civil Petitions on behalf of the employees and have also gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
8. Raja Haq Nawaz, learned counsel for the Appellant-company contended that all the respondents are not regular employees in that some of them were trainees and others were probationers. They being employees of the Appellant-company controlled by the Government can be treated in the service of Pakistan only for limited purpose. For redressal of their grievances as regard to the terms and conditions of their services, they can resort the remedy before the Tribunal under Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Ace), by filing service appeals. According to him in fact their services being contractual in nature are not governed by any statutory rules as such the terms and conditions of the contract of service have a binding effect according to which parties are bound to fulfil their obligations under the contract.
The contract entered into by both the parties clearly stipulates that the Appellant-company can terminate the services of the respondents without assigning any reason whatsoever, on one month's written notice or one month's gross salary in lieu thereof together with full benefits as per entitlement. Likewise respondents-employees can leave their job by giving one month's notice to the company. He vehemently urged that it was in view of these specific terms and conditions mentioned in the contract, the nature of the termination of the respondents was simpliciter and it was not dismissal as no stigma of any sort was imposed upon them. In the nature of termination simpliciter neither any show cause notice was required nor any such right accrued in favour of the employees in contract service. He further contended that in absence of any statutory rules, the law of master and servant would be applicable and in that case the employees can resort their remedy by filling grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. He pointed out that all these contentions were agitated by the Appellant-company in the first round of litigation before this Court which were taken into consideration, in the case of Messrs. Pakistan State Oil Co.
Ltd. (Supra), even then the relief was not granted to the respondents but the matters were remanded to the Tribunal for decision afresh on merits. Mr. Muhammad Siddiq Mirza, learned counsel also supported the contentions of Raja Haq Nawaz, learned ASC.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakhoo, learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently controverted the above contentions and argued that all the contentions agitated on behalf of the appellants have been thoroughly examined and discussed by this Court in the case of Messrs.
Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. referred (supra). Not only the delay in filing of the appeals before the Tribunal was condoned but it has been categorically held that even in case of a trainee or a probationer, if his services are terminated on grounds of mala fide in law or fact, they are entitled to show cause notices not only on the basis of principles of natural justice but also on the ground that the authority concerned has abused the power vested in it. Learned counsel further contended that the termination of service of the respondents is not a termination simpliciter but is dismissal in the garb of termination which is evident from the fact that the Appellant-company in their respective parawise comments have levelled serious allegations of misusing their authority while exerting political pressure from the date of their appointment and getting themselves transferred from Taru Jabba to Serai Naurang by using political pressure so much so their services in the management cadre were also confirmed due to political pressure. Irrespective of about, their performance during the service was not upto the mark and to the satisfaction of their superiors and were inducted in the service by using political pressure though their appointments were irregular and not approved by the Selection Board Learned counsel further argued that from the above it is evident that the termination was not simpliciter in nature but was made on the basis of misconduct, misbehaviour and negligence in the service which tantamount to the dismissal as such full-fledged inquiry into the charges was the right of the respondents-employees. He has placed reliance on the case of Messrs. Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. referred (supra) and also the case of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) through Chairman and others vs. Nasir Jamal Malik and others (2001 SCM R 934).
10.We have minutely perused the contract of the employment, which provide for pension, gratuity, leave and age of superannuation as 60 years. The contract also provides two other clauses under sub-headings `termination simpliciter' and 'dismissal'. For better appreciation of the above provisions, the same are reproduced as under:-- "TERMINATION SIMPLICITER Your services can be terminated by the Company without assigning any reason whatsoever, on one month's written notice of termination of your service or on one month's gross salary in lieu thereof together with full benefits as per your entitlements likewise you can also terminate your service by giving the Company one month's written notice of resignation from service or payment of one month's gross salary in lieu thereof. For the purpose of this clause the expression "gross salary" shall be the same as defined in the accompanying Gratuity Scheme.
DISMISSAL For reasons of any omission or commission on your part and/or for reasons of your conduct/behaviour unbecoming of your position and status in the Company and/or for reasons of any misconduct, you are liable to be dismissed from service in which event you will not be entitled to any notice of termination of service or salary in lieu thereof nor you will be entitled to gratuity or any other compensation or benefit; Provided, however, in case of dismissal from service under this clause, you will be given the opportunity of submitting written explanation and, where so considered necessary by the Company, you will be given the opportunity of personal interview also"
11.Irrespective of above, the contract of service also provides allowances, like House Rent Allowance, Conveyance Allowance, Travel and Transfer Allowances, Provident Fund, Gratuity and Medical. It is pertinent to note that the respondents, namely, Irfan. Mahmood Memon, Irshad Ali Sheikh, Shabbir Ahmad Samejo and Noor Mustafa Khuhro were appointed in 1990 as Management Trainees and were confirmed and their services were regularized in the year 1994 but were terminated on 19.9.1997 whereas rest of the respondents, namely, M. Akram Khan, Muhammad Tahir Khan, Syed Ali Naqvi Shah, M. Farmanullah Khan, Fazle Mansoor, Muhammad Tariq, Nasir Ali Khan, Zafar Ali Arbab, Syed Raza Shah, Matiullah Khan, Arbab Najeebullah, Anwar Hayat Khan, Shoaib A.
Khan, John George, Shahid Mehmood Muhammad Kahlid Aslam, Muhammad Irfan Sharif, Manzoor Zaman, Muhammad Sibtin Bhatti, Abdul Samad Khan, Ishfaq Hussain Sikandar Ali Shbaito, Shah Dost Bajkani, Abdul Jabbar Jamali, Allah Din Mirani, Shafqat Hussain Mahesar, Muhammad Siddiq Mirani, Sajid Ahmed and Malik Ahsan Qadeer were appointed as Management Trainees in the years 1994, 1995 and 1996 and subsequently many of them were regularized in 1996 but their services were terminated by arbitrary orders dated 20.8.1997 and 19.9.1997 passed without assigning any reason of whatsoever nature. Neither any show cause notice was issued nor any inquiry was held against them. It is well-settled by now that the principle of natural justice is attracted in the proceedings whether judicial or administrative if it result in consequence affecting the person or property or other right of the parties concerned". Though the principle of master and servant was applicable yet this Court in the case of Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. PIAC and others (1994 SCM R 2232) has held the action of the Corporation violating the principles of natural justice as without lawful authority and of no legal consequences. The principle of audi alterm paterm was introduced in this case. This principle is being reiterated by this Court in various other cases such as Pakistan and others v. Public at Large and others (PLD 1987 SC/Shariat Appellate Bench 304) and PIAC through its Chairman and others v. Nasir Jamal Malik & others (2001 SCM R 934). In the case of Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. referred (supra), it has been categorically held that even in case of trainee or a probationer, if his services are terminated on grounds of mala fide in law or fact, they are entitled to show-cause notices not on the basis of principles of natural justice but on the ground that the authority concerned has abused the power vested in it.
12. In Appeals Nos, 203 to 207 of 2002, the main argument agitated by the learned counsel for the Appellant-company is that appeals filed by the respondents before the Tribunal was barred by limitation. In reply to the above contentions, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other side vehemently contended that the above mentioned employees had been seeking their remedy either by way of filing suit or by filing petition in the High Court and subsequently resorted to the remedy under Section 2A of the Act and filed their respective appeals before the Tribunal which ground weighed with the Tribunal while condoning the delay. This Court in the case of Messrs Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. (supra) has already dealt with the same aspect of the matter and condoned the 'delay in filing the appeal filed by the Appellant-company. The Tribunal has rightly condoned the delay. On the question of condonation of delay in service matter, reference can also be made to the cases of Pakistan International. Airlines Corporation (PIAC) through Chairman and others v. Nasir Jamal Malik and others (2001 SCM R 934), Syed Aftab Ahmed and others v. KE.S.C. and others (1999 SCM R 197) and Managing Director Sui Southern Gas Co. Ltd. Karachi v. Ghulam Abbas and others (PLD 2003 SC 724).
13.It is contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant-company in Civil Petitions Nos, 1829 to 1830 of 2001, 598-L and 744-L of 2001 that the services of the petitioners/employees were terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the contract according to which their services were liable to be terminated with immediate effect by giving one month's gross salary in lieu of one month's notice of termination. Irrespective of the above grounds which weighed with the Tribunal to non-suit the petitioners-employees was that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was limited and restricted and the petitioners-employees were not competent to resort the remedy under Section 2-A of the Act for redressal of their grievances. All these questions have been thoroughly examined and dealt with elaborately by this Court in the connected cases of the same employees in the case of M/s Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. referred (supra) in the first round of litigation. Irrespective of the above case, this Court has also dealt with the same aspect in the cases of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) through Chairman and others u. Nasir Jamal Malik and others (2001 SCM R 934), M/s Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. v. Muhammad Tahir Khan and others (PLD 2001 SC 980) and The Managing Director, Sui Southern Gas Co. Ltd. v. Saleem Mustafa Sheikh (PLD 2001 SC 176.) In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the services of all the above mentioned employees would be governed by clause relating to the dismissal as mentioned in the contract of employees itself whereby the right of show cause notice, reply whereof are to be provided.
14. In view of the above discussion the above mentioned petitions are converted into appeal and are allowed and the judgment impugned therein is set aside. The appellants are reinstated in service with all back - benefits.
15.Similarly while maintaining the impugned judgment the civil appeals filed by the Appellant- company are dismissed and the judgment impugned therein are maintained.
16. However, in case the Appellant-company wants to proceed against any of the employees then a meaningful show cause notice is to be issued to them and an opportunity of defence and personal hearing be provided to them in accordance with law.