Ghulam Nabi Deeshak, Member, NIRC.--This appeal has been directed against the order dated 02-12-2013 passed by the Learned Member, NIRC Islamabad Bench in case No. 7A(188)/2013-L whereby he dismissed the application/petition filed by the appellant for increase in pension and medical facility of retired employees (f United Bank Limited.
2. The brief facts of the appeal are that the appellant was an employee of respondents Bank (UBL) and was retired on 28-11-1998. At the time of his retirement, the respondents Bank was a Government Bank. The UBL was privatized in the year, 2002 and at that time there existed the pension funds worth rupees ten billion and in this connection UBL established a trust in the year 1997 for the welfare of the retired employees of UBL also to meet with pension dues. The grievance of the appellant was before the Learned Bench that he has been receiving pension Rs:1321/- per month and similarly there are other Bank employees who after retirement are getting meager amount as pension which is in some cases of Rs:100 to 500 per month. Earlier appellant had made several applications to respondents-Bank for increase of pension and medical facilities. But no response was given by respondent Bank (UBL), then he filed petition before this Commission with prayer that the respondents Bank (UBL) be directed to increase the pension & medical facilities in accordance with the revised pensionery benefits approved by the Government of Pakistan which petition was dismissed, hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the arguments advances by appellant himself and learned counsel for the respondents.
4. At the very out set, learned counsel for the respondents-Bank contended that the appellant is a retired and ceased to be workmen under Section 2(xxxiii) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. This Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. He next argued that the respondents Bank is privatized whose majority share holder's alongwith controlling shares and interest have been divested into a consortium of foreign share holders of Abu-Dhabi Group & Best Ways Group, UK.
There are no statutory rules of service and respondents Bank (UBL) has own terms and conditions of service approved by Board of Directors of the Bank. The increase in pension by the Government and another state own organization is not applicable to respondents-Bank (UBL). He prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. The appellant has contended that the respondent Bank (UBL) is carrying on a pension scheme for the former employees which were established for the year, 1997. The pensioner rules under the scheme for the employees of respondent Bank were framed in consequence of the Award of Pay of Commission setup as per directive of Federal Government. The pension rules framed were adopted by the respondents-Bank and appellant was called many occasions to join the pension scheme.
He next contended that at the time of his retirement it was conformed by the staff relation and Welfare Division of respondents-Bank that appellant is entitled to pension as per rules and any enhancement made by Government shall be applicable to him. He next contended that the Learned Member has not applied his judicious mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. We have heard the arguments of appellant in person, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that the grievance of the appellant is that he has been receiving pension Rs:1321/- per month and other employees who after retirement are getting extremely meager amount as pension which is in some cases is Rs:100/- to Rs:500/- per month but the respondents Bank did not increase the pension and medical facilities in accordance with revised pensionary benefits approved by Government of Pakistan and the same be brought at par with employees of NBP, SBP & other employees of Government.
8. It is significant to note that the same issue was brought before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh at Karachi by filing a Constitutional Petition Bearing No. D-2781/2010 by Muhammad Ashraf & three others vesus UBL & three others. The Hon'ble High Court after hearing of parties disposed of the said Constitutional Petition with the observation that "having heard the contentions of Mr. Islam learned counsel for the petitioners, he was not able to point out any statutory instrument whereby the terminal benefits could be revised at par with the benefits of the government employee except clause 5.2 as reproduced above, which in our opinion would not extend any benefit to the petitioner, therefore, in our opinion petition is misdirected and is accordingly disposed of, leaving the petitioner to avail the remedy as may be applicable and available to them as per law".
9. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondents Bank (UBL) is private organization existing under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and its own terms & conditions of service which are approved by the Board of Directors of the UBL. The increase in' pension by the Government or any other state own organization is not applicable in case of Private Organization. Moreover, the appellant is a retired employee of UBL and under Section 2(xxxiii) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, he does not fall within the definition of workmen.
10. We fortify our views to the Judgment passed by Hon'ble Sindh High Court at Karachi reported in 1979 PLC 320 in case of Pakistan Railways Versus Junior Labour Court & others has held that "the definition of "worker uses the expression "is employed" which means that he must be employed in the establishment at the relevant time. If the intention of the Legislature had been to include past workers also within the definition of "workman", it would have made such intention clear by the use of appropriate words which are totally missing in the instant case. It may be pointed out that in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 the expression "civil servant" has been defined to mean not only a person who is a civil servant but also a person who has been a civil servant. No such extension of the definition of workman is contained in the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Since Respondent No. 3, had retired from the service of the petitioner long before he initiated the grievance proceedings against the petitioner, such proceedings have no legal basis and the orders passed,by the two Labour Courts are without jurisdiction".
11. In these circumstances cited above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 02-12-2013 passed by the learned Member, NIRC Islamabad. Hence, this appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. File be consigned to record after completion of codal formalities.