1. ' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.--- This is an appeal from the order passed on 9th of December, 1997 by a learned Single Judge of the High Court whereby he, while admitting Writ Petition No,494 of 1997 filed by respondents Nos.1 to 31, passed an interim order that orders of retrenchment passed in respect of the writ petitioners be kept in abeyance till disposal of the writ petition.
2. ' Brief facts forming background of the present litigation are that United Bank Limited has been suffering losses for the last many years and it is claimed that the losses were progressively increasing. One of the factors for the losses was high number of senior officers and excessive burden incurred on large number of branches which were running in losses. After a long exercise conducted by the experts it was decided to retrench a large number of officers and also to close a good number of branches. Consequently, more than five thousand officers were displaced from service but under a Golden Handshake Package which provided for compensation for the loss of income due to premature retirement. It is claimed by the Bank that the Package has been worked out in such a way that if the retrenched officers invest the money given to them they will receive income varying from 74 per cent. To 138 per cent. Of their present take-home salary. A large number of retrenched officers have filed writ petitions to challenge the action taken by the Bank in Pakistan as well as in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The respondents herein are amongst them.
3. ' The authority under which the termination orders have been issued by offering the Golden Handshake Package is clause (1) of Rule 15 of the United Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981 which reads as follows:-- "15. Termination of service.-- (1) Services of an employe in Category-1 may be terminated by the competent authority on 3 months' notice or on payment of a sum equal to his substantive pay for three months in lieu thereof."
4. ' The learned Judge in the High Court has formed the view that the above rule prima facie was available for dealing with an individual case and not for en bloc retrenchment. The other reason which prevailed with the learned Judge for admitting the writ petition to regular hearing was that the affected officers had not been given notice under the rules of natural justice. It was contended before the High Court, as has been pleaded with vehemence before us, that Bank Officers can file appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal in view of section 2-A of the Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973, but this question was left open to be decided at the time of final arguments by observing that a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of Azad Jammu and Kashmir was prima facie within the jurisdiction of Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court.
5. ' In support of the appeal attorney of the Regional Chief Executive of the Bank submitted that the writ petition on behalf of the respondents is not maintainable for two reasons. Firstly because they can file appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal as provided under section 2-A of the Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and, secondly, because United Bank Limited is not a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir within the meaning of section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act. On the second reason mentioned above it was vehemently contended that United Bank Limited is not a Corporation set up under the authority of the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir but is only a private person in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
6. ' We propose not to decide the question of jurisdiction in the present appeal because the appeal has been filed to challenge the interim order and not the admission order. This aspect will be examined by the High Court when the writ petition comes up for final hearing. In the present appeal the only question which has to be decided is whether the High Court acted in accordance with the recognised principles on the subject while granting interim relief to the respondents.
7. The fact that the writ petition has been admitted to regular hearing can at the most lead to the conclusion that the respondents had an arguable case but that itself was not sufficient for grant of interim relief to the respondents. The High Court should have adverted to the other factors while deciding the question of interim relief, namely, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, but these factors have not been discussed at all. The High Court also did not notice that the respondents have been given financial benefits to compensate them for the losses of income caused due to early retirement which means that if they remain out of service till decision of their case and are ultimately restored to service there will be no irreparable loss to them. The learned counsel who appeared for the respondents, Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, submitted that a condition has been imposed that an officer who receives the financial benefits will not be allowed to challenge the termination order. Even if so, if reinstatement is ordered, they will be entitled to full back benefits and loss suffered by them will be fully compensated.
8. ' The question of balance of convenience has also not been considered by the High Court. When the termination orders were challenged in Pakistan the matter of interim relief went to the Supreme Court of Pakistan and interim relief granted by the Lahore High Court was vacated in the case reported as United Bank Limited and others v. Ahsan Akhtar and others 1998 SCM R 68. It was observed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that balance of convenience was in refusal of the interim relief. The relevant observation may be reproduced as below:-- "(11) We may observe that even balance of convenience is in refusal of the above ad interim order.
9. If the above ad interim order is allowed to continue, respondent No,1 will be acting against the wishes of his employer and would be handling huge financial transactions. If eventually respondent No,1 's above writ petition is dismissed, it will not be possible to retrieve the above position. On the other hand, if the above ad interim order is withdrawn and eventually respondent No,1 succeeds in his above writ petition, the position can be retrieved as he would be entitled to receive all back benefits. Another aspect which was overlooked by the High Court was that the grant of above ad interim order would result into suspension of termination orders of 5416 employees, who are intended to be covered by the above Golden Handshake Package. This will also adversely affect other Banks and Corporations, which have also introduced similar Golden Handshake Schemes or intend to introduce the same."
10. ' The Supreme Court of Pakistan also observed in para. 12 that no irreparable loss will be suffered by the respondents if the interim relief is withdrawn.
11. In our opinion the High Court, by failing to advert to the questions of irreparable loss and balance of convenience, passed an order which' is not in accordance with the recognised principles on the subject. The order passed by the High Court is unsustainable in view of the observations made above.
12. ' Therefore, the appeal is accepted and that part of the judgment of the High Court by which orders of retrenchment were kept in abeyance is vacated. Consequently the application for interim relief moved before the High Court by the I espondents shall stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.