' The appeal is directed against the decision dated 28-11-1995, rendered by the learned Labour Court, Sargodha, allowing to Muhammad Rattas back benefits and directing implementation of the order before 28-12-1995. Following briefly is the background of the case:
2. Muhammad Rattas was recruited as Batik Officer Grade-III on 15-7-1990, and his services were terminated on 10-1-1991. He was, however, 'reinstated with effect from 15-1-1994. He got the basic training in the Bank Staff College, Lahore, and was posted at Mianwali. He is presently serving at Ganjial, Mianwali District, as Officer Grade-III. His colleagues, Masood Khan and Ahmad Hasan, who were sacked with him, but were later reinstated and were posted respectively at Dera Ghazi Khan and Karachi, got back benefits for the intervening period, on having successfully applied 'to the Labor Court, Multan. Muhammad Rattas served his employer with the grievance notice on 25-1- 1995 and claimed monetary benefits of service from 10-1-1991 to 15-1-1994.
3. The United Bank Limited, respondent before the Labor Court, raised certain preliminary objections and controverted the claim of th6 petitioner there. He, according to the bank people, had got ritual recruitment, as also his reinstatement in service, through political influence. His claim was barred by time, and the grievance notice was also dispatched after expiry of the statutory time limit. The Labor Court, it was averred, lacked jurisdiction, as Rattas was an officer and not a worker.
4. Undoubtedly, Muhammad Rattas had laid claim to the arrears Tor a period of three years from January, 1991 to January, 1994, by dispatching to his employer the statutory grievance notice on 25-1-1995. As, however, held in 1979 PLC 307 (Lahore), cause of action would accrue to the claimant continuously and mere message of time would not disentitle him to claim arrears. He was reinstated on 15-1-1994, and he got his posting at Mianwali on 16-1-1995, after having successfully completed the training course. Soon after, on 25-1-1995, he sent the grievance notice, as the bank people were in no mood to accede to his claim, which he considered to be legitimate, being at par with his colleagues, abovementioned.' Similar view was expressed in an earlier judgment reported as PLD 1977 Lahore 71.1 would, therefore, refuse to subscribe to the stand-point of the appellants, respondents before the Labor Court, that the bank employee was debarred by limitation from claiming his back benefits.
5. In so far as the employee's claim to be a worker or workman is concerned, I hardly find myself inclined to endorse his claim, the reason being that his very designation was that of an officer, and again in the Banking Staff College the officer and not workmen get the requisite training. Mere assertion of Muhammad Rattas made to the effect that his job hai primarily been clerical, as Cashier, cannot be given any importance. He has himself been describing his colleagues, Masood Khan and Ahmad Hasan, as officers and not as workers. Being an officer, Muhammad Rattas must not be held entitled to the aid of Labour Laws and to any relief by a Labour Court, although he could explore other channels permissible under the Banking Rules and Regulations, for achieving from the Bank the requisite relief. The Labour Court, Multan, presided over by Mr. Ghulam Abbas Khan, was known for its pro-employee posture; but in any case the order passed by the said Court in favor of the aforementioned officers would not at all be valid for the purpose of Muhammad Rattas, who has rather indulgently been regarded at par with those officers by the learned lower Court, by observing that his Case was identical with and akin to his two colleagues and by not allowing to him back benefits, discrimination would come into play, and the policy of the Bank, as also of the Government, besides principle of natural justice, would also be violated.
6. It was so obvious that the then Government had become partisan, and the Cabinet Division had, under pressure, taken a policy decision that those recruited during the period, December, 1988 to July 1990, and subsequently ousted from service, would be re-absorbed. But even the said decision did not lay down any 'guidelines about the intervening period, although it was said that fresh recruitment would be along the same terms and conditions as had been prescribed in the original order of appointment. Such recruitments had been made and re-absorption in service had been effected evidently under political influence and in line with the policy of the then Government, and considerations of merit had not at all been kept in view; rather those claiming such appointments, but belonging to the opposition or the rival groups, even though they deserved to be taken on merit, had been ignored altogether. To say that service of the officer was treated to be continuous and denial to him of back benefits would run counter to the spirit and letter of the minutes and decisions of the Cabinet Division of the Government of Pakistan would indeed amount to twisting the true facts and making a mockery of the actual state of affairs. The Bank had certainly not taken. Steps in disregard of the decision, and although Rattas had been reabsorbed in service, he was rightfully deprived of monetary benefits for the period, over which he did not render any service and had not remained in employment of the Bank, in actual practice. The learned Labor Court has deduced the result, above stated in favorable rather than in nugatory form, in a manner from which it transpired that the Court was bent upon conceding to the employee the benefits in question, even though the same were not due. I would certainly not share the view-point of the learned Court below to the effect that denial of back benefits to the employee would just be contrary 4o the decision of the Cabinet Division and would also offend against the decision rendered by the learned Labour Court, Multan, in that regard, in favor of those two officers, Masood Khan and Ahmad Hasan. Those officers had approached the Labour Court and were granted the benefits, and by no analogy could it be concluded that Muhammad Rattas also earned the same entitlement, even though he had recourse to no Court of law. Even the Mu1= Labour Court's decision, in my considered view, was liable to reversal or variation, if the bank people had only cared to approach the higher forum in time and pursue its cause with vigor.
7. Muhammad Rattas should thank his stars that he was lucky in having reinstatement in the service of the Bank and is continuing to serve the Bank in a managerial capacity, as an officer, although initially, and on the second occasion as well, he must have exercised his personal influence and political pressure, as otherwise, lot many, having similar entitlement, had remained without jobs.
8. I. Would consequently set aside the Labor Court's decision, by allowing the instant appeal, although with no order as to costs.