Muhammad Rashid, respondent No, 3, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, was appointed as Godown-Keeper by the National Bank of Pakistan, vide appointment letter dated 10-11-1974 (Annex. `B'). As per contents of the appointment letter, the appointment of the respondent was temporary and likely to last up to six months. The respondent was posted in Kutchery Branch, Sialkot of the petitioner-Bank i,e, the National Bank of Pakistan. On 5-8-1975, services of the respondent were terminated (Annex. 'G') on the basis of telegram dated 2-8-1975 received from the Zonal Office, Gujranwala.
2. After his termination, the respondent served a grievance notice on Zonal Chief. He was informed that his services were duly terminated in accordance with rules of service. He therefore, filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, before the learned Labour Court. His grievance petition was resisted by the petitioner-Bank through the reply statement. The learned Labour Court after recording the parties' evidence and after hearing them ordered the reinstatement of the respondent with back benefits vide its judgment dated 3-12-1977. It was held that as a matter of fact, the respondent performed the duties of a clerk which was a post of permanent nature and, therefore, his services could not be terminated without affording him an opportunity to show cause. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal but the appeal failed and was dismissed on 15-9-1981. The aforementioned orders dated 3-12-1977 and 15-9-1981 respectively, passed by the learned Labour Court and the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal have been assailed through the present writ petition.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the appointment of the respondent against temporary post, his services were terminated in accordance with the statutory rules of service and thus he has no right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law, award or settlement in respect of which he could seek redress through an application under section 25-A of the Ordinance. It has further been urged that the learned Labour Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the removal of the respondent from service was violative of the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, because the said Ordinance is not applicable in the case of the employees of the nationalised banks much so in case of employees of the National Bank of Pakistan which has its statutory rules of service regarding the terms and conditions of services of its employees. It has also been averred that the respondent has not availed of remedy of departmental appeal and has directly filed grievance petition before the Labour Court. It has also been submitted that grievance notice on the employer was served by the respondent through a lawyer which legally could not be done and, therefore, his grievance petition was not legally competent.
4. It is true that terms and conditions of services of the employees of nationalised banks in Pakistan and other financial institutions are governed by the Wage Commission Award and that in case of such employees West Pakistan Commercial and Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 has A no application. It has even been held so by the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal. It is, however, noteworthy that any right available to a workman under the Wage Commission Award is enforcable under section 25-A of the Ordinance like any other Award. It has been so enunciated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in its recent judgments. According to para. 232 of Wage Commission Award, period of probation is six months. During this period an employee, failing to show satisfactory progress, can be removed from service by the appointing authority without service of any notice or alternately the period of probation can be extended. In the present case the respondent was appointed on 10-11-1974. His services have been terminated on 5-8-1975.
In this manner by the time his services were terminated he had put in nine months of service that is to say he had already completed the period of probation which was certainly not extended in the meanwhile. The learned Tribunals below which are, of course, Tribunals of competent jurisdiction have recorded a concurrent finding on a question of fact c that the post held by the respondent was not of temporary nature. It was a post of permanent nature. It has also been observed by the Tribunals that termination simpliciter as ordered by the petitioner-Bank in case of the respondent is merely a garb and in fact the services of the respondent have been terminated because it was alleged that he defrauded the Bank while securing his employment on the plea that his age was less than 25 years although factually it was more than that. In such eventuality, he should have been charge-sheeted and opportunity of show cause should have been afforded to him but by way of the colourful exercise, his services have been terminated by making an order of termination simpliciter on the misconceived plea that he happened to be a temporary employee. The plea that no legal grievance notice was served has not been raised before the learned Labour Court and the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal. This plea cannot be allowed to be raised in writ petition. Availing of remedy of departmental appeal is not a condition precedent for filing grievance petition under section 25-A of the Ordinance.
5. In the light of the above discussion, it is concluded that the order of removal of the respondent from service made by the petitioner-Bank is violative of Wage Commissions Award and, therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned judgments whereby the respondent has been ordered to be reinstated in service with back benefits. There is thus no merit in the present writ petition which is, therefore, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.