1. ORDER These appeals have been preferred against the two different orders passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court Rawalpindi on 9-4-1973 and 26-6-1973 respectively. By these orders respondents were re-instated, Issue of maintainability of the petition before the Junior Labour Court under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is commonly involved in these two appeals. I therefore propose to dispose them of by one order. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable because the Bank was being run under the authority of the Central Government and it has its own statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline. In support of his first contention he placed reliances on the case of Ashraf Ahmad v. Deputy Managing Director, National Bank of Pakistan (1). Reliance was also placed on the case of National Shipping Corporation v. Syed Mubashar Hussain Kirmani, (2). National Bank of Pakistan was established under Ordinance XIX of 1949, section 9 is to the effect that Central Government will also be a shareholder of the Bank and it would purchase not less than 25% shares issued by the bank.
2. Section l2 is to the effect that there will be a Board of Directors consisting of Managing Director appointed , by the Central Government, 9 Directors elected by the shareholders and three appointed by the Central Government. These provisions clearly show that the Bank was not run under the authority of the Federal Government but it was to safeguard interests of the Central Government. Central Government has reserved the right to appoint the Managing Director. So far as the question of having statutory rules of the bank itself is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a case cited as 1970 PLC 497. This is an authority under Standing Order 18. lt has since been repealed and has no bearing to the facts of the present case. In the National Bank Ordinance neither the Central Board nor any other authority has been g.ven any power to make any rules and as such there is no question of any statutory rules framed under the said Ordinance. No copy of any rules has been placed on record. For these reasons first appeal is dismissed and case of the bank against Chanan Baig is adjourned to 11-1-75 at Rawalpindi for hearing on merits. (2) (l) 1970 PLC 4971974 PLC Note 6 p. 3