JUDGMENTLehrasap Khan, J.- This judgment shall dispose of two writ petitions (Writ Petition No.1688 of 1984 titled National Bank of Pakistan Versus Punjab, Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala etc and Writ Petition No. 1689 of 1984 titled National Bank of Pakistan Versus Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal etc).
2. Saadat Hassan Khan, respondent No.2 in both the writ petitions was in the service of National Bank of Pakistan as clerk in the year 1977. He was then serving in Small Industrial Branch, Gujranwala. He was charge- sheeted on 25.4.1977 (Annexure A) whereby he was accused of insubordination and mis-conduct etc. Explanation furnished by him to the charge sheet was considered unsatisfactory and thus a domestic inquiry followed. As a resuIt of inquiry he was found guiIty and consequently he was dismissed from service on 18.3.1982. The respondent after service of grievance notice on the employer, filed a grievance petition before the learned Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala under section 25-A of theIndustrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) Grievance petition was of course opposed by the petitioner - bank.
The learned Labour Court, however, after hearing the parties and after recording their evidence allowed the respondent's grievance petition and ordered his reinstatement in service, vide judgment dated 12.4.1984.
3. The respondent while employed as clerk at City Branch, Gujranwala was also charge-sheeted on the charges of mis-conduct, insubordination etc. In that case also a domestic inquiry was conducted, as a resuIt of which he was' found guiIty. In that case also he was dismissed from service. He challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court under section 25-A of the I.R.O 1969 through another grievance petition. The said grievance petition has also been decided in favour of the respondent.
4. Both the orders passed by the learned Labour Court whereby two grievance petitions filed by the respondent have been allowed and he has been ordered to be reinstated in service, have been assailed through constitutional writ petitions.
5. The petitioner's bank before filing the writ petitions filed appeals before the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal calling in question the Labour Court's but before the decision by the Lobour Appellate Tribunal the petitioner bank filed the under consideration writ petitions. In the present writ petitions, it was mainly averred that terms and conditions of service of the employees of Nationalized Banks and other Financial Institutions were governed by the Award of the Wage Commission and the said award could only be enforced through the NJ.R.C. It was thus urged that on the basis of award of Wage Commission an application under section 25-A of the Ordinance was not competent and thus the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction in the matter. These contentions found favour with a learned Division Bench of this Court which was then seized of these cases. Thus the writ petitions were allowed and the Labour Courts Judgments were set aside. Subsequently, the appeals filed by the petitioner-bank before the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal also came up for hearing before the Tribunal and the learned Tribunal relying on the judgment of the learned Divisoin Bench of this Court found that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter.
The Tribunal however, concluded that on account of the decision by the Division Bench the appeals filed by the petitioner-bank before the Tribunal had become infructuous. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on 11.6.1985.
6. In the meantime, however Saadat Hassan Khan, respondent No.2 and the other adversely affected employees of the Nationalized banks preferred appeals before the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court. The August Supreme Courts of Pakistan accepted the appeals filed by Saadat Hassan Khan and other employees of the Nationalized banks and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench. It has been found by the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan that Award by the Wage Commission like any other award is enforceable under section 25-A of the Ordinance and therefore, an employee of Nationalized bank has a locus standi to challenge the order of his termination from service before the Labour Court on the ground that the same was violative of the terms of the award of the Wage Commission. The under consideration case as also cases of other employees of the nationalized banks decided by the Division Bench have been remanded to this Court for decision of other issues involved in the cases.
7. As already stated in the circumstances of the Present case the impugned judgments passed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No.7 Gujranwala are no more in the field because the appeals against the said judgments preferred by the petitioner-bank before the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal have since been decided. The appeals have actually been dismissed by the Tribunal. Unfortunately judgment passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner-bank have not been assailed through the present writ petitions. Legally after the decision of appeals by the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal the judgments of the Labourt Court have merged into the judgment passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. After such merger, Labour Court's judgments which have been impugned through the present writ petitions are no more in the field and thus the present writ petitions have been rendered as mis-conceived and thus legally not competent. In this view of the matter both writ petitions are dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.