' This is an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 filed by the applicant Nawab Khan for his re-instatement in service with full back benefits.
2. It is the case of the applicant that he was appointed as a clerk in the respondent's Bank w.e.f. 3rd April, 1978 and was posted to work in Computer Division. According to the applicant he had been performing his duty to the entire satisfaction of the respondent. It is alleged that on 22nd July 1978 Mubarik Salim, the Officer incharge of the applicant asked the applicant not to come on duty from 23rd July, 1978. It is contended that the applicant's illegal and verbal stoppage from performing his duty by his superior amounts to illegal ouster and dismissal from service and further amounts to unfair labour practice. The applicant sent a grievance notice to the respondents which according to the applicant was not replied satisfactorily, hence the present application.
3. The respondents filed their reply statement contending therein that the applicant was employed with a clear and definite understanding that his employment will not exceed one month and that he was employed in place of two persons of computer division who were on leave in these days and hence in view of the said understanding the applicant did not ask for any appointment letter nor he was issued any such letter. It is denied that the applicant worked in computer division upto 22nd July 1978. It is contended that the applicant was stopped to work after 22nd April, 1978. It is further contended that the applicant was appointed on daily wages basis at the rate of Rs. 15 per day. It is denied that Mubarik Saleem the Officer Incharge of the applicant has advised the applicant on 22nd July 1978 that he was not required for duty. It is alleged that the applicant has attempted to get his service period extended only to show that he had completed the probationary period of three months which in fact is incorrect and false as the applicant was employed from 3rd April 1978 to 22nd April 1978. It is prayed that the application of the applicant be dismissed as it has been filed with ulterior motive.
4. Applicant Nawab Khan filed his affidavit-in-evidence and was cross-examined by the learned Personnel Officer of the respondents. The respondents filed affidavit-in-evidence of their Officer Incharge Control Department and Computer Division, namely Mubarik Saleem whose evidence has gone unrebutted and unchallenged as he could not be cross examined by or on behalf of the apprcant in spite of the fact that two opportunities were afforded to applicant for the said purpose.
5. I have heard the learned representative for the Respondents. None has argued the matter on behalf of the applicant. The main contention of the learned representative for the respondents is that the applicant was appointed for a limited period i.e. For 21 days on absolutely temporary basis and lie worked only for 17 working days w,e,f. 3r4 April 1978 to 22nd April 1978 whereafter he did not report for duty hence at the end of the month he was asked to collect his dues which he has not yet collected. The application of the applicant has also been opposed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of this Court inasmuch as the services of the employees in Bank are covered by the Wage Commission Award for Banks and Financial Institutions whose decision shall be binding on both employer and employees in terms of section 38(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 which are contained in Chapter (XVII) of the report of Wage Commission Award for Banks and financial Institutions 1974-
75. As against this the main grievance of the applicant is that he was verbally terminated from service which is in contravention of the provisions of the I.R.O., 1969 and Standings Orders Ordinance, 1968. A perusal of the application and evidence of applicant shows that the applicant has not spoken truth. Though he has denied the suggestion of the learned Representative of the respondents regarding his having worked for 17 days and alleged that he had received two months salaries from the respondents but on the other hand he could not produce any documentary proof in that respect. Contrary to this, the respondent's witness namely Mubarik Saleem has filed an Employees Salary Advise with his affidavit as Annexure "A" to show that the regular employees of the Bank are required to open a bank account on the day/date of their joining the bank where their salaries are being credited and they are issued employee's salary advice every month. The above contention of the witness has gone unchallenged and unrebutted as such it will he deemed as correct. The applicant could not produce any such employee's salary advice to establish his contention regarding his having received the salaries of two months. This fact coupled with his admission in cross-examination about the non-issuance of appointment letter clearly shows that he was appointed for a temporary period presumably as contended by the respondents whose evidence has gone unrebutted and unchallenged as he was not cross examined by or on behalf of the applicant. According to the report of Wage Commission for Banks, a new appointee in Bank shall be a Matriculate with second Division. Whereas the applicant admittedly passed the Matriculation examination in third division hence he was not eligible for job in the bank which further shows that the applicant was appointed on purely temporary basis for few days only as contended by the respondents. I am unable to understand as to why the Bank will not issue appointment order to a person who is appointed by the Bank as member of clerical staff or in an officer grade. It is very much strange that according to the applicant he worked for about more than for months in Bank and got the salaries of two months only, for which he even failed to produce any documentary proof. His mere verbal word in affidavit is not sufficient to establish that he worked for three months. Instead the contention of respondents regarding the period of service of the applicant made in affidavit of their witness namely Mubarik Saleem has gone unchallenged and unrebutted being not cross-examined by or on behalf of the applicant, hence the same would deem to be correct. The service rules of Banks employees are governed by the Award of Wages Commission for Banks and Financial Institutions 1974-75. Section 38(g) of I.R.O., 1969 says that the decision of Commission shall be binding on both the employer and employees. Section 38(1) of I.R.U. Says that the provisions of section 38(a) to section 38(h) shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or in terms of any award, agreetnent or contract of service whether made before Or ' after the coming into force of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974. Hence according to section 38(1) of I.R.O. When there is an inconsistency between the said Ordinance and the-Wage Commission Award for Banks and Financial Institutions, the latter, i,e, Award, shall prevail. Therefore the services of the Bank employees be governed in accordance with the terms and conditions of service contained in the Report of Wage Commission for Banks and Financial Institutions 1974-75.
' Here I would mention that the applicant was afforded two opportunities to cross-examine the respondent's witness but he failed to avail the same which shows his lack of interest in the matter.
The second opportunity was given to him on his own request which he even did not avail and instead remained absent without any intimation.
In view of the above discussions, I dismiss the application of the applicant.