' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 9-3-1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,4, Faisalabad, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service.
2. The appellant was employed as a messenger on 12-6-1980. On 29-7-1982 his services were terminated as no longer required, vide order Exh.P-2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that in para. 234 of the first Wage Commission Award, it is not mentioned that giving of reasons for terminating the services of an employee is necessary. I do not find any force in this argument. The Wage Commission does not appear to be of the opinion that bank management should have arbitrary powers of termination of services of their employees. After reading paras. 233 and 234 together, it becomes clear that giving of reasons for termination is necessary. According to para. 233 either the period of probation is to be extended or the services of the employees can be terminated if he has during the period of probation failed to show satisfactory progress. If period is extended, naturally reasons for so doing will be given. Likewise if the employee is terminated during the period of probation reasons will be given that his work is not satisfactory. If the intention of the Wage Commission had been that without any reason the services can be terminated, then instead of saying in para 233 that if the employee had failed to show satisfactory progress, it would have said that services may be terminated within the probationary period. Needless to say that the position of an employee who has completed the probationary period is better than the employee who is still under trial. When giving of reasons for the extension of the period of probation for the termination of service of a probationer is necessary then it is all the more necessary to give reasons while terminating the services of an employee who has completed the probationary period. Learned counsel for the appellant has made reference to para.250 of the Wage Commission Award which relates to the period of superannuation. It shows that a right has been given to bank employees to remain in service till the age of 60 years. To deprive them of this right, it is necessary to give reasons to termination before the age of superannuation. In the present case the appellant said that another person namely Mahboob was appointed in his place and besides this some other messengers were also employed. This shows that the post of the appellant, was not abolished. Since the post was available, there was no need to terminate the services. If the management wanted to accommodate some other persons then para. 234 was abused.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the application Exh .P-1 for the appointment of the appellant was sent to the Head Office and no reply came. Firstly, this reason is not given in the order of termination and secondly since for two years the appellant was retained in service instead of termination the Head Office should have been asked to give approval. If no approval has been received, yet no order of disapproval came from the Head Office. After retaining an employee for two years, he could not be terminated without any cogent reason. By retaining the appellant in service for two years, his appointment was impliedly approved.
4. The learned trial Judge has applied rule 15 of the M.C. B. Staff Service Rules but they were not applicable to nationalised banks. For the banks, Wage Commission Award has been made and it has been discussed above that the intention of para 234 is not that without giving reasons one can be terminated.
5. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower court, the appellant is directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits.