' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17th September, 2002 whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of respondent No.1 has been accepted and the orders of his termination from service were set aside with the 'direction to reinstate him in service.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that respondent No.1 was employed as Godown Keeper by the petitioner w.e.f. 30th July, 1991 who continued as such till 25th April, 1995 when he moved an application to get his services regularized by approaching the learned Labour Court by whom interim relief was granted by means of order dated 8th August, 1995. The respondent remained in service till 1997 but his services could not be regularized but instead a termination order was passed on 21st January, 1996. His petition was also abated on 24th June, 1998 by the learned Labour Court after insertion of section' 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The respondent approached the learned Federal Service Tribunal by means of appeal which has been accepted vide judgment impugned.
3. Heard Kh. Muhammad Farooq, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners and Mr. Ghulam Qadir, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondents at length. After having gone through the entire record, we are of the considered view that the services of respondent No.1 were terminated without affording proper opportunity of hearing and no show-cause notice whatsoever was issued. It is to be A noted that no inquiry was held and the respondent remained unaware that how and why his services were terminated. It is admitted feature of the case that the respondent has more than six years service at his credit and therefore, his services could not have been terminated summarily in view of the provisions as contained in rule 6, Category-III, Chapter-II of National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1980. Even otherwise, he could not have been condemned unheard which is in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as equity and fair play.
4. No irregularity or illegality whatsoever could be pointed out by the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners in the judgment impugned which being well-based does not warrant interference. It does not constitute a bar for re-initiation of action against the respondent subject to all legal exceptions and in accordance with law. The National Bank of Pakistan is at liberty to take any appropriate actio in accordance with law. No question of law of public importance is involved in the petition which could persuade us to grant leave. The petition being meritless 'is dismissed .