1. ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.--The petitioners in this petition have challenged the order passed by the respondent No,1 on 10-1-1989 whereby their appeal was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent No,3, an employee of the petitioners was transferred from Faisalabad to Karachi but he did not proceed accordingly and submitted an application for leave on 10-4-1986 alongwith medical certificate. This application was rejected but the respondent No,3 again repeated a leave application on 14-5-1986 which too was rejected and on 10-11-1986 the petitioners passed an order holding That the respondent has vacated the appointment in the petitioners Bank w,e,f, 20-9-1986 under Rule 15(3) of the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1980, (hereinafter referred to as the Service Rules of 1980). The respondent No,3 thereafter filed an appeal against the order passed by the petitioners on 8-12-1986 but receiving no reply he served grievance notice on 3-3-1987 and thereafter filed the grievance, petition before the learned Labour Court, which was allowed and the respondent No,3 was directed to be reinstated with full back benefits. Against this order of the learned Labour Court the petitioners filed the appeal before the respondent No,3 which was dismissed by the impugned order.
3. We have heard Mr. Noor Muhammad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.L.Shahani, learned counsel for the respondent No, 3 on pre-admission notice. Mr.Noor Muhammad, learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly contended that the respondent No,1 has erroneously held that the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment Standing Orders Ordinance 1968 are applicable to the present case for the reasons that the Service Rules of 1980 are not the statutory rules and do not have the force of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the notice of vacation of appointment dated 10-11-1986 was given under Rule No,15(3) of National Bank (Staff) Service Rules. He has emphasised that no reference has been made to the said rules being that of 1980 and therefore, the said notice should be deemed to have been issued under the Rules of 1973. Mr. M.L.Shahani learned counsel for the respondent No,3 has pointed but that the petitioners have all along pleaded that the action taken by them is under the Service Rules of 1980 and not any other rules which fact is evident from the contents of their memorandum of appeal filed before the respondent No,1. We do find from the documents brought on record that the petitioners have been pleading the applicability of the Service Rules of 1980 throughout. We may observe here that in the case of National Bank of Pakistan v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and others C.P. No, D-684/1982 and 7 other connected constitution petitions decided on 26-1-1989 we have held that the Service Rules of 1980 cannot be equated with the statutory rules and, therefore, the National Bank (Staff) Service Rules 1973, being the statutory Rules are in existence and that the employees of the petitioners' bank who fall within the definition of worker or workman will be governed by the said rules. We have also held in the same case th t the provisions of the abovesaid Standing Orders Ordinance 1968 would not be applicable to such employees of the petitioners but their services will be governed by the Service Rules of 1973 and further that the action initiated under the Service Rules of 1980 is without lawful authority. In view of the above judgment we find no force in the present petition which is dismissed in limine. However; it will be open to the petitioners to initiate proceedings in terms of the National Bank (Staff) Service Rules 1973.
4. Above are the reasons for the short order passed by us today.