ASAD MUNIR (CHAIRMAN).--- ' The respondent, Abdul Hameed, who joined the service of the appellant Bank in 1977, was compulsorily retired from service on 6-10-2009 pursuant to the charge sheet dated 25-7-2009 wherein it was alleged that he had abused and misbehaved with his superior, Mr. Khalid Pervez Cheema. Through his letter dated 12-10-2009, the respondent unsuccessfully appealed to the President of the appellant-Bank to withdraw, the order of his compulsory retirement. Thereafter, the respondent vide his letter dated 26-10-2009 applied to the Trustees, Staff/General Provident Fund Trust for the refund of the Provident Fund balance standing to his credit. Letter dated 26-10-2009 is reproduced below:-- "The Trustees, Dated 26-10-2009 ' Staff/General Provident Fund Trust, C/o. Allied Bank Ltd., Central Office, Karachi.
' Dear Sirs, AUTHORITY LETTER AND REQUEST FOR REFUND OF PROVIDENT FUND BALANCE.
' The undersigned is retiring/retired from service of Allied Bank Limited on 6-10-2009, I hereby authorize you to please pay to Messrs ALLIED BANK LIMITED, from the balance of my Provident Fund A/c, a sum not exceeding the total amount of liabilities outstanding against me for adjustment thereof. The balance, if any, left thereafter may be paid to me.
WITNESSESS:- 1. SALEEM ABBAS ABL GHQe-I LahoreSIGNATURES FULL NAME:--- MR. ABDUL HAMEED
2. Tahir Ahmad Khan 441-3A-II Township Lahore.FATHER'S NAME:--- STAFF NO.:--- Designation:---MUHAMMAD MUNSHI 5416 MG-10 Attested by (Branch Manager/ R.H. (CRBG) GH(CRBG)/ Group Head/ Chief) HBO. as the case may be) Signature with IBS No. Name with rubber stamp____________
3. By another letter dated 26-10-2009, addressed to the Chief Human Resources Group, Allied Bank, Karachi, the respondent also sought the commutation of his pension upon retirement. The said letter is also reproduced below:--- "Dated 26-10-2009 The Chief, Human Resources Group, ALLIED BANK LTD., Central Office, Karachi.
Dear Sirs, RE:- CONSENT/UNDERTAKING.
The undersigned is retiring/retired from service of Allied Bank Ltd., on 6-10-2009, In this respect I give my consent/ undertaking as under:---
(1) I hereby give my consent to surrender 50% of my Gross Pension for commutation.
(2) I hereby solemnly affirm that at present I am not drawing Pension from any other source. Yours faithfully, (SIGNATURE)
NAME ABDUL HAMEED DESIGNATION: MG-10 STAFF NO. 5416 PLACE OF POSTING GROUP HEADQUARTER CENTRAL-1, CRBG, LHR CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS 81-X.HOUSING COLONY SHEIKHUPRA. PH.NO.0563785114.
PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS:81-X. HOUSING COLONY SHEIKHUPRA. PH NO.0563785114 PHONE NO. 056-3785114 CELL PHONE NO. 0300/4944426 ' CERTIFICATE ' This is to certify that particulars mentioned hereinabove are correct. Attested by (Branch Manager/R.H. (CRBG) GH(CRBG)/Group Head/Chief) (HBO).
(as the case may be)
Signature with IBS No.__ Name with Rubber Stamp {{TABLE}
3. Pursuant to his compulsory retirement, the final/retirement dues of the respondent were computed vide calculation sheet dated 15-11-2009 and a sum of Rs.2,489,721 was found as the total amount due to the respondent on account of gratuity (Rs.178829), GPF balance (Rs.94668), ,Commutation (Rs.1615025), Medical Allowance (Rs.255,470) and SPF balance (Rs.345729) subject to the adjustment of Rs.1086502 recoverable on account of House Building Finance (Rs.929107), Personal Loans (Rs.86267) and Credit Card Recovery (Rs.71128) leaving an amount of Rs.1,403,219 as net dues payable to the respondent. In addition, the monthly pension of Rs.4791.38 was granted to the respondent as a post-retirement benefit. As is shown by the record, the respondent received his final dues amounting to Rs.1,403,219 on 18-11-2009. Despite receipt of his final dues, the respondent through grievance notice dated 4-12-2009 called upon the appellant-Bank to reinstate him in service with full back-benefits and in the alterative, sought the conversion of his compulsory retirement into normal retirement. On 23-12-2009, the respondent filed a grievance petition which has been accepted by the Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore vide its judgment dated 24-4-2012.
4. Assailing the learned Labour Court's judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant-Bank has firstly contended that after receipt of his final dues without any protest, the respondent ceased to be an aggrieved person and was, thus, estopped to challenge his compulsory retirement from service. Secondly, it is contended that the respondent was rightly retired from service as he was not found to be a fit person to remain in service. In this regard, the learned counsel referred to the respondent's reply to the charge sheet to show that the respondent, being an impulsive person, could not be retained in service. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the respondent did not seek the payment of final dues which were transferred to his account. It is also argued that the allegation of misconduct levelled against the respondent did not constitute misconduct as contemplated under the Standing Order 15(3) and that in any case, the punishment of compulsory retirement, being not synonymous with the dismissal from service, is illegal for being outside the purview of the Standing. Order 15(2).
5. The pivotal issue that needs to be addressed is whether the respondent ceased to be an aggrieved person or was estopped to challenge his compulsory retirement after the receipt of his retirement dues and benefits. Record shows that the retirement benefits of Rs 2,489,721 comprising gratuity, general provident fund, commutation of pension, medical allowance and special provident fund were due to the respondent subject to the adjustment of Rs.1,086,502 recoverable from the respondent on account of House Building Finance, Personal Loans and Credit Card Recovery. After adjustment of the aforesaid liabilities, an amount of Rs.1,403,219 was paid to the respondent on 18-11-2009. It is significant to note that vide letter dated 26-10-2009, the respondent applied for the release of .his provident fund balance as well as for commutation for pension. Both these letters, which have been reproduced above, leave no doubt that the respondent himself applied for the release of his final/retirement dues which means that the respondent had no grievance on account of his compulsory retirement. Thus, the respondent cannot take the plea that he had no option but to receive his retirement benefits as he received them happily after applying for their release. In fact, being on account of gratuity, provident fund, commutation of pension, medical allowance and provident fund balance, such dues were payable to the respondent only because of his retirement and not otherwise. It is only after the receipt of his retirement dues on 18- 11-2009 that the respondent served a grievance notice dated 4-12-2009 but made no mention therein that he had received the retirement dues or that he was willing to return the same in case he was reinstated in service. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the respondent's dispute with the appellant-Bank stood settled or his grievance was redressed upon receipt of his retirement dues and he was left with no grievance to agitate before the learned Labour Court as he had accepted his compulsory retirement willingly and thus voluntarily severed his relationship with his employer.
In support, I may refer to the case reported as General Manager National Radio Telecommunication Corporation, Haripur v.. Muhammad Aslam and 2 others (1992 SCM R 2169) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following rule:--- "It is always a question of fact to be determined on the basis of record whether an employee had accepted his termination and severed his relationship with the employer. After termination of his service, out of free will, he accepted all his dues as full and final settlement of the dispute. But this act of the employee had discontinued his connection with his employer for good. After severance of such relationship there was nothing to be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court as relationship of the parties as employer and employee had ceased to exist."
6. Since I have come to the conclusion that the respondent had no cause to agitate his grievance before the Labour Court, there is no need to examine the merits of the other arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside with the result that the respondent's grievance petition stands dismissed.