DECISION ' These are two separate appeals filed by United Bank Limited directed against the order of Sindh Labour Court No, VI, Hyderabad whereby the grievance petitions of the workers were allowed and they were directed to be reinstated in service.
2. The facts common to these cases in brief are that 34 respondents from Mirpur Khas Zone and 41 respondents from Badin and Hyderabad Zones were employed by the United Bank in various categories as Chowkidars etc.; at the time, of appointment, these workers were not given any written orders of appointment. It is alleged by the workers that they had worked for about three years each and they became permanent workers. Their services were then orally terminated by the Bank without ambiguity any reasons. They served the Bank with grievance notice and then filed petitions under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Before Labour Court, Hyderabad. The Labour Court amalgamated the two sets of petitions and disposed of their cases by two separate orders re- instating the workers with back benefits. Against these orders the Bank filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. The learned Tribunal found that although the cases of each appellants were tried separately. The Labour Court had used evidence which was not common to all the trials. That this was irregular. The cases were, therefore, remanded to the Labour Court for being heard over again in the course of only two separate trials, consolidating grievance petitions in each trial. The learned Labour Court complied with these objections and again came to the same decision that the termination was against Order 12 of the Standing Orders since there was no order in writing nor mention of explicit reasons but the Labour Court altered the previous order in case of back benefits only. In the Mirpur Khas cases back benefits were not allowed and in the Badin and Hyderabad cases also the back benefits were not allowed . The workers have preferred cross appeals in respect of back benefits only and they are fixed for hearing later in this month. The Tatter regarding back benefits has not to be discussed in the course of these appeals filed by the Bank.
3. The contentions of Ch. Naseer Ahmed on behalf of the Bank are that these workers were not permanent workers but they were casual workers and as such their cases did not fall within the requirement of Standing Orders Ordinance and the I.R.O. And they can be orally terminated at any time. The learned Advocate has also argued that under the Bank Rules only the President can appoint the Bank employees and not the Managers. That these workers were engaged by the Manager and as such they could not be regarded as employees of the Bank.
4. The case of Mr. Akhtar Ahmed Bhutta for Badin and Hyderabad Zones is also the same. It has even been denied that these workers were employed in the Bank on wages and then terminated.
According to the learned Advocate the casual workers are pot workers nor can they be termed as employees.
5. It has on the other hand been established by the workers that the Managers of the U.B.L. Have issued Certificates in writing at the time of termination of their services. These Certificates clearly mention that these workers were employed in the Bank in capacity of watchmen with effect from particular dates namely 1-11-1989 till 30-11-1990. It has also been admitted in writing that the workers have been removed from service and discharged from employment of the U.B.L. With effect from 1-12-1990. The matter of payment of wages has also been admitted as it has been stated in the Certificate that the workers have been paid wages up to 30-11-1990. The work of these workmen has been praised in the Certificate but no reason for the termination of service has been mentioned. The Managers of United Bank Limited being the Agents of the Bank with Power of Attorney, these Managers represent the United Bank in all transactions and the Bank is bound by whatever they do.
6. It is, therefore, clearly established that the respondents were all workmen and under section 12(3) no distinction is made in respect of termination of permanent, temporary or any other type of workmen and they can only be terminated by an order in writing explicitly stating the reasons for termination. The impugned orders of the Labour Court regarding re-instatement are, therefore, maintained and the appeals of the Bank against re-instatement are dismissed in limine.
7 . Regarding the payment of back benefits the question will be decided after hearing the Counter Appeals. -