' RANA BHAGWAN DAS, J.---Petitioner, National Investment Trust Limited, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 8-4-2000 passed by learned Federal Service Tribunal whereby respondent's service appeal for inclusion of the period of his service rendered with the Finance Division of Government of Pakistan before joining the petitioner-organization was directed to be counted towards retirement/settlement dues.
2. Respondent joined as Assistant in the Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan w,e,f, 4-9-1980 and served as such till 29-4-1984 when on selection as Officer Grade-III he joined National Investment Trust Limited, he was working as Chief. Manager, National Investment Trust when the petitioner-organization offered a Voluntary Separation Scheme to its employees through a circular dated 17-10-1997 offering various incentives. Respondent opted for such Scheme and on acceptance of his option he was paid his dues calculated on the basis of his services rendered in National Investment Trust w,e,f, 30-4-1984 to 8-1-1998. As his dues were not calculated for the period spent in the Ministry of Finance, he made a representation to the Chief Executive of the petitioner-Company for counting his past service and making payment of dues but it was turned down. He preferred an appeal to the Chairman of the petitioner-company which too remained unsuccessful obliging him to approach the Federal Service Tribunal for redress of this grievance.
3. Petitioner in its parawise comments admitted the past service of the respondent in the Ministry of Finance describing it as temporary service before joining the National Investment Trust. Prayer of the respondent was, however, denied and disputed with a further plea that the respondent's service could not be deemed to be the service of State as the petitioner is a Banking company in terms of Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974. Learned Federal Service Tribunal, however, set aside the orders dated 18-12-1998 and 21-5-1999 and by allowing the appeal directed the petitioner to pay the balance amount of settlement to the respondent hereinafter counting his past service in the Ministry of Finance.
4. At the hearing, Mr. Noor Muhammad Shaikh, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitoner contended that the petitioner being a company limited under the provisions of Banks (Nationalization) Act and the Federal Government owing only 8.33% share in the company it could not be said that this organization was established, owned or controlled by the Federal Government, nor the said Government had a controlling share or interest, therefore, service of the respondent in the National Investment Trust could not be declared as service of Pakistan.
5. This argument was advanced before the Tribunal and repelled with the observation that undisputedly the Government has got interest in the petitioner-company, therefore, its employees shall be deemed to be civil servants. Learned Tribunal further observed that Ministry of Finance being the Controlling Ministry of National Investment Trust had allowed the prayer of the respondent vide its U.O. No, F.1 (1) R-7/96 dated 18-9-1999 and conceded this position in para 9 of its Parwaise Comments. Quite cleverly learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner had withheld a copy of such Parawise Comments from this Court, though Parawise Comments by National Investment Trust have been included in the Paper Book. In order to comprehend the issue in its proper provisions of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act may be reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-- "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, body or organization shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of this Act."
6. We are in doubt whether the petitioner-company is a Banking company incorporated in terms of Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974 as the Schedule appended to Act XIX of 1974 does not contain the name of the petitioner-National Investment Trust. Copy of certificate of incorporation submitted by the petitioner in this Court, however, tends to suggest that it was incorporated as a company in terms of Companies Act (Act VII of 1913) on 23rd day of October, 1962. It may, however, be observed that for all practical purposes officer of the National Investment Trust are looked after,, administered and controlled by the Federal Government. Not only Managing Director and Chief Executive of the National Investment Trust are appointed and transferred by the. Government, even the Board of Directors of petitioner consists of Heads of nationalized Banks and Development Financial institutions principally set up and managed under authority of the Federal Government.
7. Although the petitioner National Investment Trust in its Parwaise Comments claimed to be a Banking company in terms of Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1997 and Mr. Noor Muhammad, learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed this ground in support of his petition at the hearing, as Banks (Nationalization) Act itself was passed in 1974, we considered the objection in the light of Act XIX of 1974. Learned counsel, however, neither submitted a copy of the Banks (Nationalization)
(Amendment) Act, 1997 (Act XVIII of 1977) nor brought it to our notice that section 11 of Act XIX of 1974 was substituted or that by virtue of section 11-A, provisions of section 11 (supra) pertaining to management of Banks were made applicable to certain financial institutions including the petitioner. Section 11 of Act XIX of 1974 as amended reads as under:-- "11. General revisions pertaining to management of Banks.--(1) Subject to subsection (2), a bank shall have a Board consisting of--
(a) a President, who shall be its Chief Executive; and
(b) not less than five and not more than seven other members.
(2) The Federal Government may, if it deems necessary, appoint a Chairman of the Board in respect of a bank.
(3) The Chairman, the President, and other members of the Board--
(a) shall be appointed by the Federal Government, in consultation with the State Bank, for a term of three years, on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the General Meeting of the bank; provided that the Chairman and the President shall be appointed from amongst professional bankers whose names are included in a panel of bankers qualified to be the Chairman or the President, which panel shall be determined, maintained and varied, from time to time, by the State Bank;
(b) may be removed for misconduct or physical and mental incapacity before the expiry of the three years' terms by the Federal Government in consultation with the State Bank;
(c) shall stand removed if he becomes ineligible on any of the grounds specified in subsection (12); and
(d) may be re-appointed by the Federal Government, in consultation with the State Bank of Pakistan, for a further period of three years.
(4) ...........................
(5) ............................
(6) ...........................
(7) ...........................
(8) Where the Federal Government has appointed a Chairman, he shall preside over the meetings of the Board, and in case a Chairman has not been appointed, then the President shall preside over the meetings of Board. In the absence of the Chairman or the President, as the case may be, the directors may elect one of the member to preside over the meetings.
(9)
(10)
(11) The Board, the President and other officers shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties in accordance with sound banking principles and prudent banking practices and shall ensure compliance with regulations and directions that may be issued by the State Bank from time to time.
(12) ..........................
8. A glance at the aforesaid provision expressly reflects the control, management and administration over the affairs of the petitioner-National Investment Trust by the Federal Government. We are, therefore, not inclined to hold that the respondent's employment in the petitioner-organization could not be deemed as service of Pakistan or that he could not be deemed to be a civil servant within the purview of section 2-A supra.
9. As to the right and entitlement of the respondent, we are of the view that he is entitled to count his service with the Federal Government in the Ministry of Finance for the purpose of his retirement and settlement of dues pursuant to the Voluntary Separation Scheme of the petitioner in view of office memorandum No,F 5(2)-Reg. 7/81-1352 dated 31-12-1981 of Regulation Wing of the Finance Division of the Government of Pakistan as he had applied for his appointment through proper channel; that there is no break in his service and he is entitled to service benefits on voluntary retirement. His case is also governed by B clause (c) of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 for computation of his period of service for receiving settlement dues pursuant to the acceptance of his option for Voluntary Separation Scheme of the petitioner. We feel constrained to observe with regrets that public functionaries instead of being fair and reasonable towards civil servants indulge in unnecessary luxury of litigation at public expense. This attitude must be abandoned as it is often repeated by this Court that public functionaries should act fairly, justly and equitably.
10. To our mind learned Service Tribunal was right in arriving at the conclusion by allowing the respondent's appeal and the impugned judgment does not suffer from any inherent infirmity or jurisdictional error or defect.As no question of general public importance has been raised in this petition we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal which is declined and the petition is dismissed.