' ABDUL HAMEED KHAN KHATTAK (MEMBER).---By means of this appeal the appellant has called in question propriety of the order, dated 19-9-1997, whereby his services were terminated.
2. Facts required for disposal of the appeal shortly stated are that the appellant was selected as Management Trainee in Talent Pool Scheme of PSO Company Ltd., whereafter, he completed his training at Karachi, Taru Jabbar Depot and lastly at Seraj Naurang Depot (relevant orders in this respect are Annexures-A, B, C and D, annexed with the memo. Of appeal). On completion of his training, he was offered employment with respondent-Company as Depot Officer with effect from 1-10-1996 (Annexure-E) whereafter he was serving as Depot Officer, Serai Naurang Depot, as a regular employee of the respondent-Company but he was wonder-struck to receive the impugned order, dated 19-9-1997, issued by respondent No,2, whereby his services were terminated with immediate effect by giving one month's gross salary in lieu of one month's notice of termination.
The impugned order is Annexure-F. He challenged the same by making representation (Annexure- G) but the same having remained unresponded, the appellant preferred this appeal.
3. Parawise comments/objections were filed by the respondents by contesting the appeal as, according to them, the appointment of appellant was as a result of political pressure and that even the appointment was irregular as his selection was not approved by the Selection Board but he got himself inducted under the cover of political pressure and then continued using same tactics throughout. It was case of the respondents that as per terms and conditions of his appointment, his services were rightly terminated on one month's time benefit.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that no show-cause notice was issued nor any inquiry was conducted before passing of the impugned order which was violative of natural justice and is against relevant rules and regulations, thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the impugned order could not be sustained being violative of natural justice and he cited case of Mrs. Anisa Rehman (1994 SCM R 2232) and he also referred to the judgment of this Tribunal rendered on 19-8-1998 in 3 Appeals Nos.21-P of 1998, 22-P of 1998 and 317-R of 1998 Muhammad Tahir Khan, Syed Ali Naqi Shah and M. Farmanullah Khan v. Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad and another)
6. These contentions were opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, as according to him as per terms and conditions of appointment letter, the services of appellant could be terminated on one month's prior notice or salary in lieu thereof and he sought support from the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P.No,507-K of 1998 to 513-K of 1998 (Ghiasuddin Shaikh and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others), decided on 25-1-1999.
7. We have considered the above contentions and have perused the relevant citations.
8. It is pertinent to reproduce here the relevant terms and conditions relating to termination and dismissal of the appellant:-- "Termination Simplicitor ' Your services can be terminated by the company without assigning any reason whatsoever, on one months written notice of termination of your service or on one month's gross salary in lieu thereof, together with full benefits as per your entitlements. Likewise you can also terminate your service by giving the Company one month's written notice of resignation from service or payment of one month's gross salary in lieu thereof. For the purpose of this clause the expression 'gross salary' shall be the same as defined in the accompanying Gratuity Scheme.
"Dismissal ' For reasons of any omission or commission on your part and/or for reason of your conduct/behaviour unbecoming of your position and status in the Company and/or for reasons of any misconduct, you are liable to be dismissed from service in which event you will not be entitled to any notice of termination of service or salary in lieu thereof, nor you will be entitled to gratuity or any other compensation or benefit: ' Provided, however, in case of dismissal from service under this clause, you will be given the opportunity of submitting writing explanation and, where so considered necessary by the Company, you will be given the opportunity of personal interview also."
9. The above contentions raised on behalf of the appellant seems to be devoid of force altogether as it was inter alia observed in an unreported judgment decided on 16-4-1998 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Aftab Ahmed v. K.E.S.C. (C.P.L.A. No,1305-K of 1997) that definition of "civil servant" given under section 2(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 is not applicable to the employees of KESC as they are deemed to be in service of Pakistan for limited purpose of providing a forum for agitating their grievances and further that the relationship of Master and Servants existed between the parties and in absence of violation of provisions of law or statutory rules, no exception could be taken to the view which found favour with the Tribunal as the petitioner will be entitled to receive one month's salary in lieu of notice plus any other dues payable under the terms of appointments or internal rules of the Company.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant made reliance on the decision rendered by a Hon'ble Bench of this Tribunal at the principal seat at Islamabad, in M. Tahir Khan and others v. Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and N.R. But it to our mind cannot clinch the matter as the judgment delivered is still sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners in C.P. No,507-K of 1998 to 513-K of 1998 (Ghiasuddin Shaikh and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others) were also employees of PSO and were selected under Talent Pool scheme but their services were terminated and their appeals were summarily dismissed by the FST, Karachi Bench, and the petitions for Leave to Appeals were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by confirming the judgment of the FST. The present case being on all fours with those cases, the ratio decidendi given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein can conveniently be pressed into service thus, we do not feel any hesitation in concluding that the impugned order being in consonance with the appointment letter of the appellant was validly passed and the appeal being unmeritoriuos, is hereby dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
12. Copies of the judgment be sent to all the concerned through registered post.