' S. Islam Hussain an employee in the National Bank of Pakistan has moved an application under section 22-A (8) (g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the prevention of the commission of unfair labour practice against National Bank of Pakistan. The petitioner who is the Secretary General of National Bank of Pakistan Staff Union and is also the Secretary General of National Bank of Pakistan Employees Federation, has alleged that on account of his trade Union activities, he was periodically and repeatedly victimized by the respondent-Bank who have now sent him on forced retirement which shall take effect in June, 1984 vide their memo. Dated 28th May, 1983 which reads as under :- "OFFICE ORDER ' Mr. S. Islam Hussain, Officer Grade-III is advised that in terms of rule 17 (1) (a) of the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1980, he is hereby retired from the Bank's service.
' He has been granted 365 days leave preparatory to retirement with effect from 11th June, 1983, as permissible under the Rules. He will thus stand retired from the Bank's service with effect from the date of expiry of leave preparatory to retirement granted to him i. e. 9th June, 1984 (close of business).
' In case he does not wish to avail the leave preparatory to retirement he will stand retired from service with effect from 9th June, 1983 (close of business).
(Sd.)
M. NAWAZ KHAN PRESIDENT."
' Mr. Islam Hussain, petitioner, has challenged the legality of the above order and has also moved an application praying that pending decision of this case the effect and operation of the impugned notice of retirement dated 28th May, 1983 may be stayed. An interim order was passed on 6th May, 1984 directing the respondents to maintain status quo. This order came up for confirmation on 17th May, 1984.
2. The learned representative Mr. Wasi Ahmad appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the National Bank of Pakistan Sat Service Rules, 1980 under which the impugned order has been passed has no statutory force and as such the order passed under Rule 17 (1) (d) of the said Rules is against Order 12 (3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Employment)
Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 which lays down that the services of the workmen shall not be terminated nor shall a workman be removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service except by an order in writing which shall explicitly stat the reasons for the action taken.
3. Mr. Wasi Ahmad, representative, submitted that no reasons have been given in the impugned order which is bad in law. Memoon A. Kazi, learned counsel for the respondent Bank contended that even if the said West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance is applicable, the service rules shall take effect, but he failed to show how they can take effect. In fact he conceded that W. P. (Standing Orders) Ordinance is applicable on the respondent-Bank. He, however, contended that Islam Hussain is not a worker and as such neither Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 nor Standing Orders Ordinance, 1961 is applicable on the petitioner. Mr. Wasi Ahmad, contended that the petitioner is a worker and that this point can only be decided after evidence is led by both the parties in support of their contention. I agree with the learned representative. Mr. Wasi Ahmad, representing the petitioner that mere designation of an employee cannot determine the status unless the nature of duties performed by him are taken into consideration. This is also the view of the Wage Commission Award, 1975 as contained in paras. 53, 54 and 55.
4. Mr. Wasi Ahmad, representative for the petitioner also submitted that retirement age of the employees in the Bank is 60 years according to the Wage Commission Award of 1978 and that the Wage Commission Awards of 1972 and 1978 do not confer any power on the Bank to frame Rules enabling them to send the workers on premature retirement.
5. I am satisfied that a prima facie case exists for the confirmation of the prohibitory order passed by me on 6th May, 1984 and accordingly I confirm the same and direct the respondent not to retire or remove the petitioner from service till the decision of the main application under section 22-A
(8) (g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
Prohibitory .