' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.---This appeal under section 48 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), preferred on behalf of the appellant bank, is directed against the judgment/order, dated 12-8-2005, recorded by, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Peshawar, whereby grievance petition of Mukhtiar Hussain, respondent was accepted, verbal termination order was held illegal and of no consequence and the appellant bank was directed to reinstate the respondent in service with all back benefits and wages.
2. Mukhtiar Hussain, respondent herein, was initially appointed as Godown Keeper in the appellant's establishment on 1-1-1980. Later on he was designated as Assistant and Data Supervisor. In due course respondent was transferred to Computer Centre of the Bank in April, 1999, from where he was relieved on 30-3-2003, due to closure of the, said centre. Seemingly aggrieved, the respondent filed departmental appeal on 9-4-2002, which was rejected on 16-5-2002. The verbal termination order, dated 30-3-2002 and the rejection order of appeal were assailed before the Services Tribunal, Islamabad. The appeal was, however, withdrawn due to privatization of the appellant bank vide notification, dated 10-2-2003. Ultimately respondent served grievance notice to the appellant bank on 2-8-2003. As no reply was received, grievance petition under section 25 of the Ordinance was instituted before Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Peshawar.
3. After recording such evidence, as the parties wished to adduce, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Peshawar, accepted the grievance petition, by means of his order, dated 12-8-2005, holding that the verbal termination order was illegal and not in accordance with the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
4. Mr. Nisar Ahmad Khan, Advocate for the appellant's bank bitterly criticized the impugned order of reinstatement of the respondent and attempted to argue that according to respondent's own admission, his services were terminated on 30-3-2002. The respondent was required by law to serve' the requisite grievance notice under section 46 of the Ordinance, within thirty days of the aforesaid order. On the contrary, the respondent served the grievance notice on 2-8-2003 and failed to comply with the mandatory provision of law and as such the petition was liable to dismissal on this score alone. Additionally, the learned counsel contended that sufficient material was available to the record to show that the respondent was not an employee of the appellant's bank and his wages were paid by Messrs Peshawar Pipe Mills, a borrower of the bank, on whose Godown, the respondent was posted as Chowkidar. The respondent never worked against a permanent post at any time nor did he prove that he was a permanent employee of the bank. The inference of the trial Court qua this issue is misconceived and erroneous.
5. On the contrary, Mr. Waqar Ahmad Seth, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, controverted the arguments, addressed by learned counsel for the appellant bank and supported the impugned judgMent/order wholeheartedly.
6. A perusal of> the record would reveal that respondent was recruited by the appellant bank as Godown Keeper on 1-1-1980 and later on he was designated as Assistant Data Supervisor.
Subsequently, respondent was transferred to Computer Centre of the Bank in April, 1999, from where he was relieved on 30-3-2003, statedly due to closure of the Centre. The respondent filed departmental appeal on 9-4-2002, which did not succeed. The same was rejected on 16-5-2002.
The termination order and rejection order of appeal were impugned before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad. However, due to privatization of United Bank Limited, vide Notification, dated 10-3-2003, the appeal was withdrawn. The respondent served grievance notice on 2-8-2003, which remained un-responded, which necessitated him to approach the Court of law i,e, Labour Court, Peshawar. It is evident from the record that respondent was recruited by the bank and he was not selected or recommended by the borrower i,e, Messrs Peshawar Pipe Mills. Therefore, on no principle of law and equity, he could be treated to be the employee of the borrower. It would hardly make any difference if the salary of the temporary employee/Godown staff or the daily wages employees were debited to the borrower's account. For all practical and legal consequences, respondent was placed under administrative control of the appellant bank. A somewhat similar question was considered by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mir Muhammad Khan. v. Secretary to Government and others (1997 SCM R 1477). In this case, the services of an employee Afghan Refugee Organization were terminated after he had rendered more than ten years of temporary service. A plea was taken that the employees of the said organization were not government servants as their salaries were not paid from the Annual Federal Budget and that Annual Expenditure incurred was reimbursed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The apex Court repelled the contention by holding that employees of the said Organization were civil servants and were entitled to pensionary benefits.
7. In the case of Zonal Chief National Bank of Pakistan and others (C.P. No,1833-L of 2001) decided on 23-10-2001, the services of a number of such employees were terminated by the. Bank while other employees were regularized. The Tribunal reinstated them in service which order was upheld by the apex Court. In the case of Ghulam Rasool (supra), a Chowkidar of the National Bank was treated to be an employee on stop-gap arrangement, therefore, his services were terminated by the Bank. The Tribunal passed an order reinstating him in service which was maintained by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan and leave to appeal was declined. A somewhat similar matter was considered by the apex Court in the case titled as National Bank of Pakistan and another v.
Malik Ali Sher (C.P. No,849-L of 1993), decided on 18-5-1994. In the said case, Malik Ali Sher was employed by the Bank as Godown Keeper against a post, which was of permanent nature. His services were terminated. The Labour Court reinstated him in service and apex Court refused to grant leave to appeal to the bank.
8. In Ghulam Abbas (supra), a number of Management Trainees were ordered to be absorbed. It was held that the protection of Labour Laws was available before the Tribunal while dealing with the cases of workmen. In the case of Dr. Anwar Ali Shato and others. v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2002 SC 101, it was held that even the contract employees could be reinstated in service in appropriate cases if such appointment had become permanent by efflux of time. A similar view was taken in Abdul Sattar and another. v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited and others 2001 SCM R 1935.
9. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, I find that the respondent having served the appellant bank for more than 22 years, appellant's bank had no reason to do away with his services without any justifiable reason. The material available on the record has been appreciated by the trial Court in its true perspective and the findings of the Court below do not appear to be the outcome of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The impugned order is illegal and of no consequence.
The appeal fails, which is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.