' SYED EKRAM HUSSAIN JAFRI (MEMBER)---These five Appeals bearing Nos,244, 245, 246, 247 and 248(K), of 1998 filed by M/s M. Jurail Pirzada, Muhammad Afzal Pasha, Atiq Ahmed, Afzal Ahmed and Nasim Ahmed, respectively, are intended to be disposed of by this single judgment in leading Appeal No,244(K) of 1998, as common points of law are involved in all the appeals whereas facts almost are also identical except in dates in certain cases.
2. Factually all the five appellants were employees of National Film Development Corporation (NAFDEC) in different positions and had rendered their services for different periods ranging from 1974 to 1997 when their services were terminated vide impugned letters, dated 30-6-1997 (available with the respective files) with effect from 31-7-1997, for the reasons that the Board of Directors of the NAFDEC in meeting, dated 18-6-1997 had decided to close down the NAFDEC Units/Offices based at Lahore and Karachi and that by virtue of the said decisions the services of the employees of the said two Units of NAFDEC have become surplus.
3. The appellants have held the impugned order of termination of their services as illegal, invalid having no legal effect on the grounds firstly that they (appellants) being civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 by virtue of insertion of section 2A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 are entitled to show-cause notice under section 11(2), of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 before their termination and secondly the respondents have ignored established principle of first in last out as their juniors are still in service of the Corporation whereas they are out of its service. They have, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate them with back benefits.
4. The respondent's stand/assertions/allegations as contained in their parawise comments are that they (respondents) are not statutory body. Therefore, they have refuted the claim of the appellants that they have become civil servants to be dealt with in terms of the provisions available in the Civil Servants Act, in respect of their terms and conditions of service by virtue of insertion of section 2-A, in the Service Tribunals Act, w,e,f, 10-6-1997 and that they are entitled to the service of show-cause notice under section 11(2), of the Civil Servants Act and to apply the principle of "first in last go". They have denied that any junior to the appellants belonging to the Import and Distribution Unit of NAFDEC Karachi has been retained. They have denied that the respondents have not given reasons in the impugned order for their termination. They have, very specifically asserted that the respondents/employer is not a statutory body but it is public limited company having its own Organizational Manual pertaining to the terms and conditions of service of its employees and all such matters of its employees are being dealt with in accordance with the said Organizational Manual at every stage. They have pleaded that seniority is not considered for termination or removal of an employee but it is always referred to for promotions only according to Organizational Manual.. They have pleaded that appellants are neither civil servants in terms of Civil Servants Act, 1973 to entitle them a show-cause notice prior to their termination nor they are workmen to be dealt with the principles of seniority at the time of termination. They have asserted that the respondents have terminated the services of the appellants quite in accordance with the terms and conditions of their appointments letters, and with its Organizational Manual as they had become surplus ones with reference to the Import and Distribution Units of respondents (NAFDEC) at Karachi by virtue of its decision in its Board of Directors to close down the two Units of Import and Distribution at Karachi and Lahore due to change of Import Policy of Government regarding films.
They asserted as neither the provisions of Civil Servant Act, 1973 are applicable to the appellants in respect of terms and conditions nor the termination is due to any penal action, hence there is no need of any show-cause notice to them, they have, therefore, pleaded that termination of the appellants is quite legal, valid being in accordance with the terms and conditions of their appointment and the Organizational Manual of the Corporation. They have, therefore, pleaded that the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
5. It is proper to mention here that the original appeals of the appellants were filed quite within time and so also the amended appeals with the permission of the Tribunal within one month.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants repeated the grounds of the appeals during his arguments and contended that the impugned order is illegal, void and not tenable as neither the show-cause notice has been served on the appellants as required under section 11(2) of the Civil Servants Act nor the principle of "first in last go" has been extended to the case of the appellants.
He has contended that the appellants are entitled to benefit of all the terms and conditions of Civil Servants Act, 1973 because the appellants have become civil servants by virtue of insertion of section 2-A for all intents and purposes with reference to their terms and conditions. He has argued that the rejection of appeals of the appellants is also improper and void for want of reasons of rejection. He has relied upon the law cited in PLD 1981 SC 612, 1991 SCMR 2330, PLD 1987 SC 304, PLD 1987 SC 447 and 1996 PLC (C.S.) 1029, in support of his contentions that the impugned order is illegal and void being passed without serving a show-cause notice on the appellants and without applying the principle of first in last go. He has, therefore, contended that the impugned order be set aside and the appellants be reinstated with back benefits.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents have taken us during his arguments through the grounds of parawise comments and the documents like appointment letters and termination letters, and Organizational Manual containing provisions of rules and regulations with reference to terms and conditions of the employees (appellants) of the Corporation and the very enactment under section 2A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and the order/judgment of our esteemed Supreme Court passed in Civil Petition No, 1305-K of 1997 and several others, dated 16th April, 1998 and contended that impugned orders of termination of service of the appellants are quite legal, valid, proper and in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of service of the appellants as contained in the very appointment letters with reference to the Organizational Manual of the Corporation under which they are very legally and validly dealt with as they are not civil servants in terms of Civil Servants Act, 1973 for all intents and purposes but they have been declared as Civil Servants for very limited purposes of bringing their grievance to the Service Tribunal with reference to the terms and conditions of their service according to the rules and regulations of the Organization concerned. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the appeals are hit by the provision of Order-I, rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure and also time-barred because it will be treated that the appeals were not filed on the date earlier than the date of the filing the amended appeals.
8. We have very carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, given patient hearing and our anxious consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused all the relevant documents, law and studied the citations relied upon by the learned Advocates in their arguments. In our view the appeals are well in time as the amended ones are filed after obtaining copy of order with the permission of the Bench of this Tribunal whereas originally they were filed well within time. Undisputedly the respondents (Corporation) is neither the statutory body nor the appellants are civil servants in terms of Civil Servants Act, 1973 prior to the insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act 1973. The appellants also cannot deny that they were employed by the respondents under quite very specific terms and conditions and conveyed to them through a written letter of appointment, dated 30th December 1977, relevant part thereof is reproduced hereunder:-- " LETTER OF APPOINTMENT ' This is to advise you that your contract with the Corporation will be terminated on 31st December, 1976 and that you will be subsequently absorbed in the permanent cadre of the Corporation with effect from 1 January, 1977 on the following terms and conditions:-- XXXXXXX xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
6. Your services are liable to be terminated by giving one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice on either side. XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX xxxxxxxxxx ' Please sign and return the copy of this letter as mark of your acceptance."
9. The appellants also cannot deny that their services were terminated through a letter dated 30- 6-1997 in writing containing the very specific reasons, which is also reproduced as under:-- " LETTER OF TERMINATION OF SERVICES ' In the 73rd Meeting of the Board of Directors of NAFDEC held on 18th June, 1997, it has been decided to close down NEFDEC's Unit Offices based at Lahore and Karachi. By virtue of this decision, the services of all the employees of NAFDEC's Unit Offices have become surplus.
2. It has, therefore, been decided to terminate your services with effect from 31st July, 1997 (A.N) in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the letter of your appointment. The intervening period shall be considered as notice period on our side as required under the NAFDEC's Rules."
10. It is very clear from the plain reading of the letter of appointment that the service of the appellants will be liable to be terminated by giving one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice of either side, being one of the terms of appellants' appointment letter. The termination letter (impugned order) dated 30-6-1997 has provided one month's notice as contained in the appellants' letter of appointment because appellants' services are terminated w,e,f, 31-7-1997 by virtue of order dated 30-6-1997. The same (impugned order) contains very specific reasons and circumstances under which the impugned letter of termination of services of the appellants has been passed. Rule relating to termination etc. Of employees of the respondents/Corporation is contained in para. 12.02 of Chapter XII under heading "Termination, Resignation and Dismissal" which is reproduced hereunder for proper appreciation:- "12.02 Services of confirmed employees can be terminated at any time by giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof."
It is clear from the above that the respondents have its own manual of Rules and Regulations pertaining to the terms and conditions of its employees and the services of the appellants are terminated keeping in view the relevant provisions and terms and conditions of appointment of the service of the appellants. We observe on account of admitted facts and section 2-A that the respondents is neither the statutory body nor the (appellants) were civil servants in terms of civil Servants Act, 1973 but they have become the civil' servants by virtue of insertion of section 2-4 in the Service Tribunals Act for the very limited purposes of bringing their grievance to it with reference to the terms and conditions of their services with reference to the rules and regulations as provided for in their own organizational set up. The very enactment of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is reproduced below:-- "2-A. Service under certain corporations. Etc. To be service of Pakistan.-- Service under any authority, corporation, body or organization established by or under a Federal law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share or interest is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan and every persOn holding a post under such authority, corporation or organization shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of this Act."
' As is clear on bare reading of the above enactment in section 2-A that the employees of such-like authority, corporation, body or organization shall be deemed to be civil servants for the purposes of this Act, including the organization like respondents being under the, control of Federal Government administrative control have been deemed to become civil servants fore the purposes of this Act, meaning thereby the appellants have been awarded the status of civil servants only for agitating their grievances before the Tribunal with reference to their terms and conditions available to them (appellants) of such-like organization available in the Rules and Regulations of the Organization. The appellants cannot be dealt with reference to the provisions of Civil Servants Act, 1973 in respect of terms and conditions of their service, in presence of rules and regulations (Organizational Manual) governing the terms and conditions of service of employees of the Organization (respondents) applicable to the appellants from very beginning of their services and since, their absorption in the permanent cadre of the corporation with effect from January, 1977 till the impugned order of their termination from service dated 30-6-1997.
11. The scope of the application of section 2-A to the employees of such-like organizations including respondents is very limited. While passing an order in Civil Petition No,1305-K of 1997 and others, our esteemed Supreme Court has observed: "The employees of the various authorities, corporations etc. Mentioned in section 2-A have been declared in the service of Pakistan for limited purpose of providing remedy by way of appeal to them against an order of which they feel aggrieved."
' Thus, we are very much clear in our minds being guided by the above observations of our esteemed Supreme Court in respect of the scope of the section 2-A for the employees/appellants' becoming civil servants by virtue of insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 w,e,f, '
10-6-1997 to hold that the appellants are subject to the rules and regulations/Organizational Manual of the Organization concerned/respondents in respect of the terms and conditions of their services. With this legal position and the factual position in respect of rules and regulations governing terms and conditions of appellants' service as D discussed above we do not hesitate to be of the view that the impugned orders are quite legal, valid being passed keeping in view the Organizational Manual of the respondents in respect of terms and conditions of service of the appellants as contained therein (its Organizational Manual) and conveyed to them through letters of appointment and termination letters. We observe that the respondents in the appointment letters have given specific reason for the termination of services of the appellants.
12. It is not disputed by the appellants that the Board of Directors of the respondents had decided to close down the Import and Distribution of two Units of NAFDEC at Lahore and Karachi, and thus, the entire staff of the two Units had become surplus with reference to the two Units of Import and Distribution at Lahore and Karachi by virtue of decision taken by the Board of Directors due to changed import Policy of the Government regarding the Films. In such a state of affairs of the respondents in presence of the decision of the Board of Directors and the appellants' becoming surplus, respondents had no alternate but to resort to the terms and conditions of the appellants.
Therefore, the services of the appellants have been terminated in terms of appointment letters due to close of Import and Distribution Units of NAFDEC at Karachi and Lahore.
13. We are not convinced with the arguments of learned counsel of the respondents on the point of limitation. We do not find any merit in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned order is illegal and void and not sustainable. The citations relied upon in support of his contentions referred to above by learned counsel for the appellants are of no use in the circumstances of the case discussed above.
14. For the above reasons on facts and law we uphold the impugned orders being free from any illegality. We, accordingly, dismiss all the appeals with no order as to costs.
15. Parties be informed accordingly.