This judgment shall dispose of two appeals; one re: Deputy Chief Manager (Operation), Bank of Oman Limited, Deira-Dubai (UA.E.) and another v. Sheikh Salah-ud-Din (Appeal No. Lhr-113/93- Punjab) and the other re: Sheikh Salah-ud-Din v. The Deputy General Manager (Operations), Bank of Oman Limited, Deira-Dubai (UA.E.) and another (Appeal No.1hr-105/93-Punjab) which are from the decision of the Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore, dated 14th of February, 1993 whereby the grievance petition filed by Sheikh Salah-ud-Din was accepted and the Deputy General Manager (Operation), Bank of Oman Limited, Deira-Dubai (U.A.E.) and the Chief Manager, Bank of Oman Limited, Lahore Branch, Lahore were directed to reinstate him in service with effect from 15th of October, 1985 without back benefits.
2. The Deputy Chief Manager (Operations) and the Chief Manager, Lahore Branch shall, hereinafter, be referred to as the appellants while Sheikh Salah-ud-Din as the respondent.
3. On 6th of December, 1978 the respondent was appointed as an Officer Grade-III in the Bank of Oman Limited at Lahore vide letter of appointment (Exh. P-1 and Exh. P-1/1) issued by .The Deputy General Manager (Operations) Bank of Oman Limited, Head Office, Deira-Dubai (U.A.E.). On 6th of October, 1980 the Bank of Oman Limited, Doha Branch sent a telex (Exh. P-3) to the Bank of Oman Limited, Lahore Branch intimating that their Branch was in need of one good and efficient Cashier, having good experience, to act as Head Cashier and requesting them to suggest someone for the job. On 28th of October, 1980 the Bank of Oman Limited, Lahore Branch suggested the name of the respondent to the Bank of Oman Limited, Doha Branch, Qatar. On 20th of January, 1981 the respondent was appointed as an officer in the Bank of Oman Limited, Doha Branch, Qatar on the terms and conditions as specified in the Employment Agreement Deed (Exh.P-2/1). These terms inter alia stipulated that the contract was initially for a period of one year and would be considered renewed for another year, unless terminated earlier by either party, giving in writing at least one month's notice of such termination and that overtime, fringes and other benefits and medical.
Transport, insurance disability, compensation etc. Would be according to local labour law. In pursuance of this agreement, the respondent joined the Bank of Oman Limited, Doha, Qatar. On 15th of August, 1985 the Bank of Oman Limited, Doha Branch, Qatar terminated the services of the respondent with effect from 15th of October, 1985 on the ground that his services had been found redundant "according to a job evaluation done recently to determine and fix the optimum staff strength of the Branch". On 14th of October, 1985 the respondent signed a receipt (Exh. R-1) acknowledging the receipt of all his service and benefits and all dues on release from the bank service-end certifying that there was nothing outstanding against the Bank. On 18th of October, 1985 a certificate (Exhs. P-5/P-5/1) was issued to the respondent by the Bank of Oman Limited, Doha Branch, Qatar certifying that he had been released on 15th of October, 1985 after he had served for about six years and eleven months.
4. About a year afterwards, the respondent on 1st of September, 1986 served a grievance notice (Exh. P-12) on the appellants alleging that the termination of his services offended against the principle of "Last Come First Go", that if his services were not required at Doha Branch, Qatar; he could have been repatriated to his original place of work i.e. Lahore Branch and that quite recently some persons had been employed in the Branch but he had not been recalled. Getting no response to the grievance notice, he filed grievance petition on 7th of October, 1986 on the above allegations praying for his re--instatement in service with all back benefits.
5. The appellants in their written reply resisted the grievance petition. They contended that the employment of the respondent in the Bank of Oman Limited at Qatar was a fresh Appointment on different terms and conditions to be regulated by the local laws of Qatar and it did not constitute as transfer from one branch to another. They also contended that valid reasons had been furnished by the Doha Branch for terminating the services of the respondent. They denied the plea of the respondent that he was entitled to be recalled when fresh appointments were made in the Lahore Branch. They raised preliminary objections also to the effect that the respondent was not a workman, that since the services of the respondent were terminated by Doha Branch and his services there were governed by the local laws of Qatar, the Labour Court at Lahore had no jurisdiction, that the grievance petition was barred by time, having been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed in section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, that the respondent had received all his service benefits and other dues after the termination of his services and was, therefore, estopped from challenging his termination and that the grievance petition was liable to be dismissed as the respondent had filed a petition before the N.I.R.C. And a suit in the Civil Court against the termination of his services.
6. The respondent, in support of his grievance petition examined himself as P.W.1. In rebuttal, Muhammad Humayun, Manager, Legal Department, Bank of Oman Limited entered the witness- box as R.W.1. After appraising this evidence, the learned Labour Court held that the respondent, in view of the duties performed by him, was a workman, that the mere fact that the respondent had received full and final payment of his dues after the termination of his services, did not operate as an estoppel against him, that since the respondent was transferred to Doha from Lahore, the Labour Court at Lahore had jurisdiction, that the grievance notice and the grievance petition were not barred by time as they were within time from the knowledge acquired by the respondent of the fresh appointments made by the appellants and that since the respondent had withdrawn his petition filed in the N.I.R.C. And the civil suit, they had no effect on the grievance. Petition. On merits, it was held that since Muhammad Ashraf was appointed by the appellants as a Clerk wit effect from 1st of July, 1986 vide letter, dated 13th of July, 1986 (Exh. P-8), the respondent was entitled to be reinstated in service in view of the provisions of Standing Order 14 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 which has bearing on re- employment of retrenched workmen. In view of these findings, the appellant; were directed, vide impugned decision, to reinstate the respondent with effect from 15th of October, 1985 without back benefits.
7. The appellants have filed the appeal against reinstatement, whereas the respondent has preferred the appeal claiming back benefits.
8, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised an objection that the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be dismissed as it is not signed by them. The appellants who filed the appeal, are the Deputy Chief Manager (Operations), Bank of Oman Limited, Head Office, Deira-Dubai (UA.E.) and the Chief Manager, Bank of Oman Limited, Lahore Branch, Lahore. However, the appeal is signed not by them but by Messrs Tariq M. Akbar and M. Saleem Khan. They also signed the Vakalatnama in favour of learned counsel for the appellants. They acted so in pursuance of an authority letter given to them by Mr. M. Hanif Yousaf, Vice-President and Head of Operations/Administration Division, Bank of Oman Limited on 1st of March, 1993. By this letter, both the officers were authorised to execute the Power of Attorney and sign the pleading and/or affidavit on behalf of the Bank in connection with the-Court cases filed by the employees. The appellants were impleaded as respondents in the grievance petition by the respondent not in their personal capacity but as senior most officers of the Bank. The Vice-President and Head of Operations/Administration Division who authorised Messrs Tariq M. Akbar and M. Saleem Khan to execute the Power of Attorney and sign the appeal, falls within the ambit of an `employer' as defined in section 2(c)(iii) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and section 2(viii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. According to section 2(c)(iii), an "employer" means the owner of an industrial or commercial establishment and includes any person responsible to the owner for the supervision and control of such establishment. Similarly, according to section 2(viii), an "employer" in relation to an establishment means any person or a body of persons, whether incorporated or not, who or which employs workmen in the establishment under a contract of employment and includes any person responsible for the management, supervision and control of the establishment. Since Mr. M. Hanif Yousaf is also a person responsible for the management, supervision and control of the establishment, he is, by all means, an "employer" and the appeal having been signed by the officers nominated by him to do so, does not suffer from any legal defect. I am inclined to this view by the observations made in paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as National Bank of Pakistan and another v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others (1993 SCM R 105). In this connection, learned counsel for the respondent has cited Ahmad Khan v. Municipal Committee and others (1986 PLC 978) and an unreported judgment rendered in United Bank Limited v. Munir Ahmad (Appeal No.798/91 decided on 31st of May, 1992).
Both these decisions are by my learned predecessor. These decisions lose their efficacy in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above.
9. On merits, the services of the respondent were terminated with effect from 15th of October, 1985 vide letter (Exh.P-4) which was issued on 15th of August, 1985. He received all his service-end benefits and all dues on 14th of October, 1985 vide receipt (Exh.R-1). He evidently did not feel aggrieved by the termination itself, because if he had any grievance about it, he would have brought it to the notice of the employer within a period of three months and if the employer had failed to communicate a decision within fifteen days, filed a grievance petition in the Labour Court within a further period of two months as provided in section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. He admittedly did not do so. After the expiry of the above period of limitation, he could not legally challenge his termination. Learned counsel for the respondent has conceded this position in his arguments. According to him, the grievance of the respondent is based on Standing Order 14 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment. (Standing Orders) ordinance, 1968. The relevant part of this Standing Order runs as under:- "14. Re-employm ent of retrenched workmen-Where any number of workmen are retrenched and the employer proposes to take into his employment any person within a period of one year from the date of such retrenchment, he shall give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen belonging to the category concerned, by sending a notice by registered post to their last known addresses to offer themselves for re-employment, and they shall have preference over other persons, each having priority according to the length -of his service under the employer."
10. The first question which arises for determination, is as to whether the respondent can take advantage of the above Standing Order. The respondent was originally appointed in the Bank of Oman Limited at Lahore as Grade-III Officer on the terms and conditions as contained in the letter of appointment (Exhs.P-1/P-1/1). These terms and conditions are as follows:- "(1) You will be on probation for a period of three months, during which time your services can be terminated without our giving you any notice or assigning any reasons.
(2) The engagement is also subject to the production of;
(a) Good character certificate from at least two reputable persons or parties.
(b) Previous employment and release certificates.
(c) Certificates or Degrees of Educational Qualifications.
(3) Your appointment is strictly subject to your readiness to serve in any of our offices/Branches in the UA.E. Or outside. Your hesitation or objection to the compliance of the posting order(s) would render you liable for immediate termination of service.
(4) You will be bound by all the Rules and Regulations of the Bank, and sign all such Staff Forms and Documents as are or may be required of from time to time by our employees.
(5) Your monthly salary will be as under:- Basic SalaryPak Rs.1,300.00 House Allowance600.00 Conveyance Allowance250.00 Medical Allowance100.00 Total.Pak Rs.2,250.00
11. On 20th of January, 1981 he was employed as an Officer in the Bank of Oman Limited, Doha Branch, Qatar on different terms and conditions as laid down in the Employment Agreement Deed (Exh.P-2/1) which runs as under:-- EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT DEED We hereby confirm and appoint Mr. Sh. Salah-ud-Din s/o Mr. Sh. All-ud-Din holder of. Pakistani Passport No.AJ-139239 as an Officer under the following terms and conditions:-
(1) Monthly salaryQR.1,740
(2) Overtime, fringes and otherAccording to local labour benefits.Law.
(3) AccommodationFree furnished by sponsor.
(4) Food
(5) Duty HoursEight hours only.
(6) HolidaysAccording to local Govern-- ment announcement and Friday off.
(7) LeaveAnnual leave for one, month with salary to be availed annually.
(8) Air passage.Free air passage for both sides annually.
(9) Medical, transport, insuranceAccording to local Labour disability, compensation etc.Law.
(10) Repatriation arrangements includ-Responsibilityof the ing return of deed body and thesponsor. services benefits to the legal heir of the employee.
(11) The employee will not be repatriated during the period of this contract without reference to Embassy of Pakistan.
The above contract is initially for a period of one year and will be considered renewed for another year, unless terminated earlier by either party, giving in writing at least one month's notice of such termination."
12. From the above two documents, it is manifest that the service of the respondent at Qatar was quite distinct from his service at Lahore, having no continuity and nexus with each other. One organization can have two or more different establishments. This is recognised by law, as held in Grindlays Bank (Lloyd Branch) Employees' Union v. Registrar, Trade Unions and another 1980 PLC 800(i), Muhammad Ali v, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another (PLD 1978. Kar. 649) and Messrs Ehsan Sons v. Abdul Razzaq Habib and others (1987 PLC 491). Since the service of tie respondent at Qater was to be governed by the labour laws of that place according to the Employment Agreement Deed (Exh. P-2/1), he cannot legitimately invoke the provisions of Standing Order 14 in respect of that service.
13. Assuming that the establishment at Lahore and that at Qatar are one and the same and Standing Order 14 enures to the respondent also, even then he has no case. His grievance is that one Muhammad Ashraf was appointed within one year of the termination of his services but he was not recalled. The letter of appointment of Muhammad Ashraf is Exh. P.8. It shows that he was appointed with effect from 1st of July, 1986 as a Clerk. The respondent, however, was an officer both at Lahore as well as at Qatar. The category of an officer and that of a clerk are entirely different.
Therefore, the appointment of Muhammad Ashraf did not furnish the respondent with any cause of action.
14. The other findings recorded by the learned Labour Court in favour of the respondent have not been assailed by learned counsel for the appellants in his arguments.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned decision directing the appellants to reinstate the respondent in service on the basis of Standing Order 14 cannot be upheld.
16. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is accepted, the impugned decision is set aside and the grievance petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. As a result concomitant, the appeal preferred by the respondent for back benefits is dismissed.