' The facts as stated by Ayyaz Mahmood in his petition are that he was employed as a Typist by Zonal Head, National Bank of Pakistan, Sahiwal by appointment order dated 27-5-1992 for six months (Annex:A). The petitioner, however, continued to perform his duties even thereafter. Vide letter dated 5-8-1993, respondent No,2 converted the petitioner into daily wages. The petitioner, however, continued to perform his duties without any break as Typist with respondent No,3. On 12- 10-1993, Respondent No,3 wrote a letter to respondent No,2 to regularise his service (Annex:D). It was specifically mentioned in that letter that the petitioner was performing his duties diligently and was doing his job with effect from 25-5-1992. On 9-12-1993, a letter was written by respondent No,2 to respondent No,3 directing him not to issue any appointment letter in writing, to the petitioner with an intention to avoid confirmation of the petitioner, but he was allowed to continue in service (Annex: E). Vide letter, dated 3-2-1994, respondent No,2 again informed the Manager, respondent No,3 that petitioner will continue in service (Annex: F). By letter dated 19--7-1994, respondent No,2 again informed respondent No,3 to allow the petitioner to continue as typist. In this letter also, he was directed not to issue him appointment letter in writing (Annex: G). Respondent No,3 issued a certificate to the petitioner on 17-9-1994 certifying that the petitioner was performing his duties as Typist with the National Bank of Pakistan (Annex: H). On 25-1-1995, another letter was written whereby respondent No,3 was directed not to issue any appointment order or termination letter to the petitioner (Annex: I). This was followed by letters, dated 1-8-1995, 15-1-1996, 16-7-1996, 30-10- 1996, 20-1-1997, 16-4-1997 and 17-7-1997 (Annexures J to P). On 8-10-1997, respondent No,2 wrote a letter to respondent No,3 requiring him to submit a certificate confirming that the petitioner was regularly performing his duties as the same were required by the Head Office (Annex: Q).
2. It is further stated in the petition that a meeting of the higher officials was convened wherein the case of the petitioner was considered and it was decided that since he was physically a Typist and performing clerical duties, he should, therefore, be assigned the duties of Typist (Annex:Q/1). A certificate was issued by respondent No,3 (Annex. R). Vide letter, dated 22-1-1998, the petitioner was allowed to perform his duties (Annex.S). On the basis of the letter dated 19-6-1998 (Annex. T) the petitioner was verbally removed from service on 28-6-1998.
3. It is further stated that the petitioner has been in regular employment of the respondent with effect from 24-5-1992 and he continued to perform his duties as such till 28-6-1998. He drew his wages up to that date as per salary slip (Annex: U). However, with an intention not to regularize the services of the petitioner, the employment of the petitioner was shown as daily wages. According to the provisions of law, the petitioner attained the status of a regular employee but with a mala fide intention the respondents, in an illegal manner, did not regularise the petitioner, with a view to avoid payment of regular wages and treated him as daily wages employee. It is further mentioned in the petition that the trade unions of workers existing in the respondents Bank have been raising demand to regularise the service of daily wage/contractual employees. On the eve of Golden Jubillee, all those employees who had rendered regular service, were to be regularised but the respondents threw them out of employment and thereby the respondents also changed the terms and conditions of employment of the petitioner to his disadvantage. It is also stated in the petition that since the employment of the petitioner was treated as daily wages, therefore, he did not fall within the definition of "civil servant" and the Federal Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. It has been prayed that the verbal termination of the petitioner dated 28-6- 1998, be declared as illegal, without lawful authority and mala fide and the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with full back benefits' and treat him as regular employee. The respondents be also directed not to commit further acts of unfair labour practice in future.
4. The petition was admitted on 8-7-1998 and the verbal termination order was held in abeyance meanwhile. Written comments were filed by the respondents wherein several preliminary objections were raised. It was stated that since the termination was neither connected nor led to an industrial dispute, therefore, the petitioner was not a workman and hence no locus standi to file the petition. It was next mentioned that no instance of unfair labour practice was quoted in the petition, therefore, it was not competent. Since the petitioner claimed regularisation in service which involved interpretation of Service Rules of National Bank of Pakistan and provisions of Wage Commission Award, therefore, the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the Commission. It was also stated that in view of insertion of section 2-A in the Services Tribunal Act, the petition was not maintainable. On facts, it was admitted that the petitioner was initially engaged on 27-5-1992 on daily wages basis and it was not required to issue any appointment letter to him. It was further stated that the appointment of the petitioner was made as and when necessity' arose on the written request of the petitioner. The Branch Manager was not competent to issue any certificate to the petitioner. The petitioner performed duties of Typist on daily wages basis till 28-6-1998, when his services were terminated vide order, dated 28-6-1998. (Annex. R/1). The petitioner intentionally refused to acknowledge' the termination letter. The petitioner was never treated as regular employee being working on daily wages basis, hence the petition was liable to be dismissed.
5. Parties tendered in evidence affidavits and relied on the documents appended with their affidavits and pleadings. Arguments were addressed. Almost the same facts and objections as were stated in their respective pleadings were reiterated during arguments, by the counsel of the parties.
6. The first objection raised by the counsel for the respondents that since the termination of the petitioner dated 28-6-1998 was neither connected A with nor the same led to an industrial dispute, therefore, the petitioner being not a worker/workman under section 2(xxviii) of the I.R.O., 1969, has no I locus standi to file the petition for redress of his alleged grievances, is not tenable in the eyes of law in view of the decision given by the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in PLD 1988 SC 53, whereby the decision given by the Lahore High Court on the plea raised by the counsel for the respondents, was set aside and all the cases were remanded to the High Court for fresh decision on merits. Again, a Division Bench of the Karachi High Court in the case of M/s Telephone Industries of Pakistan v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (1998 PLC 22) held that a worker whose services are terminated under Standing Order 12(3) would be covered by first part of definition of "worker" contained in section 2(xxviii) of I.R.O., 1969. The decision given, by the Supreme Court (1994 SCM R 2213) was also discussed in it. Similar view was also taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1996 SCM R 883.
7. The second objection raised by the Counsel for the respondents that in view of insertion of section 2-A in the Federal Services Tribunal Act, 1973, the petitioner cannot seek remedy before the NIRC has equally no force, because admittedly the petitioner has been working on daily wages. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the reported case PLD 1996 SC 610 held that temporary or work-charged staff do not fall within the definition of "civil servant".
8. The third objection raised by the respondent's Counsel that as the petitioner has claimed regularisation in service and it involves interpretation of Service Rules and provisions of Wage Commission Award, therefore, the NIRC has no jurisdiction, is also devoid of force. It has been held by. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in PLD 1993 SC 105, that NBP Staff Rules, 1980 are not statutory and that the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employments (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 are applicable to the employees of National Bank of Pakistan and remedy lies before the Labour Court.
9. It is established through evidence on record that the petitioner has been working against the post of Typist since 27-5-1992 which was essentially of a permanent nature. The petitioner was not made permanent contrary to the provisions of law obviously with a view to deprive him of the benefits of a permanent workman. It is a settled proposition that when the E law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular mode then it must be done in that manner and in no other way. Standing Order (1) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, has classified the various categories of workers for employment in industrial and commercial establishments. The employer of such establishments are not empowered in law to create any other category while employing a worker in order to frustrate the provisions of law. Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was promulgated to protect the working conditions 'of the workmen employed in the Industrial and Commercial establishments. The real determining factor is the duration of the job for which a worker is employed which would show as to whether the post is of permanent or temporary nature.
Mode of payment is not the determining factor. In the present case, since the petitioner has been working for a long time as Typist, which job certainly lasted for more than nine months and is still available, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order (1) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employments (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, he attained the status of permanent workman after completing three months probationary period satisfactorily. To this effect reliance is placed on PLD 1996 SC 610.
10.It is also observed that the petitioner filed the petition on 6-7-1998. The respondents filed the written comments after receipt of notice of the application on 12-9-1998, alongwith which a copy of the alleged termination order dated 28-6-1998 (Annex: R/1) was appended. No document was placed on record alongwith reply to show that the said termination letter was delivered to the petitioner by the Manager or was sent to him through any other mode. The plea raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was removed verbally, in such circumstances, cannot be said to be without force. It has been held in 1997 PLC 466 that removal of employee by a verbal order is illegal. In the written statement as well as during arguments, the counsel for the respondents stated that since the petitioner was appointed as daily wages, therefore, it was not necessary to give him a written termination letter. His contention is contrary to the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employments (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, wherein it is a legal requirement that for terminating the employment of a worker, a written order must be given stating explicity the reasons for such termination. Again, under *Standing Order 2-A, of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, it is a legal requirement that every workman at the time of his appointment, transfer or promotion shall be provided with an order in writing, showing the terms and conditions of his service.
11. The objection of the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case and did not quote a single instance of unfair labour practice. Is equally without substance. In para. (6) of his affidavit the petitioner deposed that the unions have been raising demands to the management to regularise the services of temporary workers and on the eve of Golden Jubilee, realizing that they might be regularised, the respondents verbally terminated the services of the petitioner and others. This fact is not specifically denied by the respondents. It is, therefore, clear that the respondents refused to continue to employ the petitioner on the ground that he was or was not member of the trade union and his case was recommended alongwith others by the trade union, therefore, his removal from service constituted unfair labour practice under section 15(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the I.R.O., 1969. The Commission has jurisdiction to hear cases which are based on allegations of unfair labour practice as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in PLD 1988 SC 53.
12. In the light of above findings, the petition is accepted, impugned order of termination dated 18- 6-1998 is set aside and petitioner is declared as a regular employee with all consequential benefits.