DECISION ' This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No,7 at Sukkur, whereby the petition for reinstatement under section 25-A of the IRO was allowed with back benefits. It arose in the following circumstances: ' The petitioner was appointed as a "Messenger" in the respondent Bank on 22-5-1990. On completing six months he was duly confirmed on 28-1-1991. However on the 25th of September 1991 his services came to be terminated on the receipt of an Office order which reads as follows:-- "In terms of Government decision the services of Mr. Ghulam Murtaza son of Muhammad Moosa Qadri, Messenger NBP Rato Dero Branch, are terminated with immediate effect.
' He will be paid one month's substantive pay in lieu of his services terminated."
2. After settling the preliminaries the petitioner had presented the petition before the Labour Court.
3. One of the contentions raised before the Labour Court was that the respondent Bank was being run under the authority of the Federal Government and had its own statutory rules. As a consequence the petition was not maintainable in the Labour Court. This contention was repelled.
4. The plea taken was ritualistic in nature and there is settled law by now that Labour Courts do come in. The statutory rules of 1973 do not exist and the termination of service as in the instant case is outside the pale of legal propriety and norm.
5. The respondent was a permanent employee and was eased off unheard on the basis of certain decisions taken by the Government. This simply could not be done under the law.
6. Ali Hassan Soomro who had appeared as a witness for the appellant had however added that the respondent was not eligible for appointment as on his own showing he would be over-age at the time of appointment.
7. Firstly this was not the ground for removal as to be found in the aforesaid Office Order and secondly the authorities at the time of appointment could relax the limit. Ali Hassan Soomro had no inkling in the matter, whether it was so done or not.
8. The respondent had mentioned in the application that he had been rendered jobless as a result of the termination of his service. Issues had not been joined about it, and there is no reason why it should be denied to him.
9. As a result the impugned order is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.