This judgment shall dispose of two connected writ petitions viz. W.P.No,5129/1983, titled Muhammad Abbas v. National Bank of Pakistan and others and W.P.No,2162/1984, titled National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and two others. Both these writ petitions assail the judgment dated 13-9-1983 passed by the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore.
2. Muhammad Abbas respondent No,3, in W.P. No, 2162/1984 and petitioner in writ petition No,5129/1983, was appointed as typist in the organisation of the petitioner-Bank viz. the National Bank of Pakistan on 12-41978, initially on probation for six months. The appointment letter is Annex.
'A'. He actually joined duty on 26-4-1978 and thus his period of probation expired on 25-10-1978.
3. On 25-9-1978, the authorities in the Zonal Office reported that his performance was not upto the mark. But no action was taken on this report during the subsistance of the period of probation of Muhammad Abbas. His services were, however, terminated vide letter dated 20th of November, 1978 (Annex. 'G' )i,e, about a month after the expiry of the period of probation. He was conveyed accordingly vide letter dated 30th November, 1978 (Annex. 'E') addressed to him by the Senior Vice- President, Administration.
4. Muhammad Abbas, thereafter filed application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) challenging the validity of the order of his termination. The employer i,e, the National Bank of Pakistan contested the grievance petition.
The learned Labour Court dismissed the employee's application on 2-4-1989. An appeal was preferred by Muhammad Abbas before the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 30-1-1982, remanded the case to the learned Labour Court for deciding the same afresh. The learned Labour Court after rehearing the case accepted the grievance petition vide order dated 1-12-1982 and directed that Muhammad Abbas he reinstated in service with hack benefits.
5. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal and the learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 13-9-1983 maintained the judgment of the lower Court to the extent of direction re: reinstatement of Muhammad Abbas in service but accepted the appeal so far back benefits were concerned. Thus through the impugned judgment back benefits as ordered by the learned Labour Court have been withheld by the learned Tribunal, thus the under consideration writ petitions.
6. The petitioner-Bank has challenged the Tribunal's order whereby reinstatement of Muhammad Abbas has been ordered while Muhammad Abbas has impugned the judgment of the Tribunal so far it has withheld the back benefits ordered to be paid to Muhammad Abbas by the learned Labour Court.
7. Initially it was urged on behalf of the petitioner Bank that terms and conditions of services of the employees of the nationalized banks and other financial institutions in Pakistan were governed by the Award of the Wage Commission and the said Award could only be enforced through the National Industrial Relations Commission, therefore, the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction in the matter. This plea found favour with a learned Division Banch of this Court and thus through judgment dated 10-4-1985 of the learned Division Bench writ petition filed by Muhammad Abbas was dismissed while the one filed by the bank was allowed. Decision of the Division Bench was challenged by way of appeal by Muhammad Abbas before the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan and the august Court allowed his appeal, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was set aside and it was held that Award by the Wage Commission could be enforced like any other Award under section 25-A of the Ordinance. Consequently the Supreme Court remanded the, under consideration cases to this Court for deciding the same afresh on merits.
8. Regarding merits, it has been urged on behalf of the bank that services of Muhammad Abbas have been terminated in accordance with the Award of the Wage Commission and rules viz. the Staff Rules of the National Bank of Pakistan which are statutory rules and, therefore, no right guaranteed or secured to the petitioner by or under, any law or any award has been violated for which he could seek redress of his grievance under section 25-A of the Ordinance. There can of course, be no dispute about the proposition that National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules are statutory rules and, therefore, the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, has no application to the present cases. But under the service rules of National Bank of Pakistan services of a probationer can he dispensed with, without any show- cause notice if his performance during the period of probation has been found to be not upto the mark. In the circumstances of the present case as already stated Muhammad Abbas was appointed on probation for six months. He joined his duties on 26-4-1978 and, therefore, six months period of probation expired on 25-10-1978. His services have been terminated on 30-11-1978 i,e, more than a month after the completion of the period of probation. This means that Muhammad Abbas was no more a probationer when his services were terminated and, therefore, the bank is not entitled to avail of the provisions of the Staff Service Rules or those of the Wage Commission Award which provide that during the period of probation services of a probationer can be terminated without any notice. Under paragraph 232 of the Wage Commission Award, six months period of probation is provided in case of candidates selected for appointment. It has further been awarded that period of probation shall not exceed six months. Under para. 233 ibid in the event of an employee failing to show satisfactory progress during his probation the appointing authority may extend his period of probation or terminate his services. This paragraph is not available to the hank because Muhammad Abbas has been removed from service after about a month of completion of his period of probation of six months.
9. In view of the above conclusion, services of Muhammad Abbas after the completion of period of probation could be terminated after affording him an opportunity to show cause in accordance with the provisions of para. 258 and the Wage Commission Award or under the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, as termination simpliciter for want of vacancy after service of one month's notice or on payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice. This course has not been adopted in the present case.
10. For the foregoing reasons, services of Muhammad Abbas have been terminated without lawful authority and thus no exception can be taken to the impugned order whereby he has been directed to be reinstated in service. The writ petition filed by the bank viz. W.P.No,2162/1984 fails and is dismissed.
11. Regarding back benefits, it is observed that the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, a Tribunal of competent jurisdiction after considering all the aspects of the case and the record pertaining to the performance of Muhammad Abbas till his removal from service has decided against Muhammad Abbas and disallowed back benefits to him. In writ jurisdiction it is not deemed expedient to interfere with an order passed by a Tribunal of competent jurisdiction in exercise of its discretion. Writ Petition No,5129/83 is, therefore, also dismissed. It is however, clarified that Muhammad Abbas shall be entitled to back benefits with effect from 13-9-1983, the date on which the impugned order was passed by the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. There shall, however, be no order as to costs in these two writ petitions.