This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.1692,1694, 1695,1696 and 1697, all of 1987, as these are directed against the same order of the Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad dated 1-4-1987, and common questions of law and facts have been raised therein. It shall, however, remain on the file of W _ F No.1692 of 1987.
2. The facts are that in these cases, the private respondents namely Miss Rehana Naheed, Mehnga Lal, Abdur Rashid, Umar Hayat and Abdul Salam, being the ex-employees of Dubai Bank, filed grievance petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, challenging the validity of the orders whereby their services were terminated. The grievance petitions were directed against (1) Deputy General Manager, Dubai Bank Ltd., Karachi and (2) Muhammad Akram, Manager/ Attorney, Dubai Bank Ltd., Faisalabad Without impleading the petitioner herein, as a party to the grievance petitions, in the body thereof, it was averred that all the shares of the Dubai Bank Ltd., were purchased by the petitioner-Bank i.e. Union Bank Middle East, but Dubai Bank remained a separate entity, though Union Bank Middle East, would be responsible for controlling the supervising its operations.
3. The grievance petitions were accepted by the learned Labour Court by a single order dated 1-4-1987. It took the view, that the Dubai Bank Ltd., was closed down and the petitioner's services were terminated in violation of law. That while absorbing the staff of Dubai Bank Ltd., in the Union Bank Middle East, the local authorities of the Bank, resorted to arbitrary method of pick and choose and failed to follow the principles "last come first go". Accordingly a direction was given that the petitioners " shall be absorbed in the staff of Union Bank of Middle East operating in Pakistan or in the staff of Dubai Bank Ltd "
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sahibzada Muhammad Arif, Advocate has also been heard for the respondents except in Writ Petition No.1697/1987 filed against Abdul Salam who is absent despite service and is, therefore, proceeded against ex parte
5. The grievance voiced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Union Bank Middle East was neither served with any grievance notice nor made party to the petitions under section 25-A of the IRO and, therefore, no direction could have been given to it to absorb the respondents. This contention is well-founded. It is evident that the petitioner-Bank has been condemned unheard.
Face with this situation, the learned counsel for the respondents did no have much in supporting the impugned order, in so far as it relate to Union Bank, except that he has submitted that the two respondent in all the grievance petitions are also the employees of the Union Bank Middle East.
Even if it is so, they were not sued in their capacity as representatives of the Union Bank which is, undoubtedly, a separate corporate body, Without being given any opportunity of being heard the petitioner-Bank, could not have been issued the impugned direction. The order under challenge, in so far as it relates, to Union Bank, is utterly illegal and without lawful authority.
6. In this view of the matter, the writ petitions are accepted, the impugned order in so far as it embodied a direction requiring the Union Bank of Middle East to absorb the respondents, is declare to have been made without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
A.A./U-10/L.