On 24.5.2001, respondent filed a grievance petition under Section 25-A of IRO, 1969 against the appellant. It was stated that he is a regular employee of the Bank having been appointed a Godown Officer on 6.10.1996. He served upto 19.1.2001 when his services were terminated by means of a verbal order. He served a grievance notice on 16.4.2001 and then approached the learned Labour Court. According to him the said order was illegal and void. The plea taken by the appellant in the written statement was that the respondent was never an employee of the Bank. His services were 'hired on the godown of customers of the Bank and it was a purely temporary arrangement and the salary was borne by the customer. Learned Labour Court recorded the evidence of the parties. Vide judgement dated 25.1.2005, grievance petition was allowed and the respondent was ordered to be reinstate with full back benefits.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant draws my attention to the various appointment orders to urge that there were breaks in the course of service and the respondent cannot be deemed to be a permanent employee of the Bank. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, relies on the case "Ikram Bari and 524 others vs. National Bank of Pakistan through President and another (2005 SCM R 100) to support the impugned judgment of the learned Labour Court.
3. I have gone through the Labour Court records. Now it is true that upon entire reading of the appointment orders Ex. P. 11 to P. 19 one does get impression that from time to time these were being erratically issued. However, nothing turns on the same, reason being that in response to para-1 of the grievance petition where the respondent stated that he was employed n 16.10.96 and served upto 19.2.2001, no such plea has been raised. On the ther hand, I deem it proper to reproduce here the following from para-1 of he written statement: "The petitioner was first hired for performing duty in the mortgaged godown of M/s. Khurshid Jamal
(Pvt) Ltd. Where the pledge stocks were lying and since after that the petitioner has been performing duties at godowns of various other customers who have availed of the cash finance facility from the Bank. Now the matter of the godowns has been taken over by a firm Muqaddum and since then i.e. since 17.2.2001. This Muqaddum is incharge of the godowns and the petitioner is no more serving the Muqaddum".
It will thus be seen that there has never been a break in the service of the respondent throughout the said period of more than three years. I further find that an attempt has been made to represent as if there had been breaks in the service of the respondent by issuing the said letters/orders one after the other but erratically. However even RW-1 has not stated that there had been breaks in the said service. It has also been pointed out by the said RW that several similarly placed Godown Officers had been absorbed in regular service by the Bank.
4. Having thus examined the evidence on record, I find that the said judgment of Hon'able Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Ikram Bari and 524 others is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. I may reproduce here some excerpts from the leading opinion delivered in the said judgment in para-15 thereof at pages 115 and 116 of the report:-- "An Islamic Welfare state is under an obligation to establish a society which is free from exploitation wherein social and economic justice is guaranteed to its citizens. The temporary Godown staff and the daily wages employees were continued in service of the Bank on payment of meagre emoluments fixed by the Bank. In most of the cases of these employees, there were artificial breaks in their service so as to circumvent the provisions of the Labour Laws and the Rules of the Bank and to deny them the salaries and other service benefit of regular employees. In some cases, the Bank did not issue formal letters of appointment or termination to the employees so as to preclude them to have access to justice. There was no equilibrium of bargaining strength between the employer and the employees. The manner in which they had been dealt with by the Bank was a fraud on the Statute. A policy of pick and choose was adopted by the Bank in the matter of absorption/regularization of the employees. By Article 2-A of the Constitution, which has been made its substantive part, it is unequivocally enjoined that in the State of Pakistan principle of equality, social and economic justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed which shall be guaranteed as fundamental right"......................................................................................................................
It is difficult to countenance the approach of the Bank that the temporary Godown staff and the daily wages employees should be continued to be governed on disgraceful terms and conditions of service for an indefinite period. In view of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the National Bank was required to act reasonable, fairly and justly".
FAO accordingly is dismissed, however, with no orders as to costs.