' Respondent No,3 was appointed as Clerk on 19-2-1996 by the Punjab Provincial Cooperatives Bank Limited on temporary basis. He continued as such in service when on 2-4-1998, he was issued notice for termination by the Zonal Chief of the Bank. After giving grievance notice, he filed petition before the Punjab Labour Court No,VII, Gujranwala in which the parties produced evidence, on the perusal of which, learned Labour Court accepted the same by judgment, dated 22-6-1999. An appeal was filed there against which has been dismissed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on 12-2-2000. This petition (Writ Petition No,5651 of 2000) has been filed there against.
2. Writ Petition No,5652 of 2000. In this petition, respondent No,3 was appointed as Clerk on 19-2- 1996 by the Punjab Provincial Cooperatives Bank Limited on temporary basis. He continued as such in service when on 2-4-1998 he was issued notice for termination by the Zonal Chief of the Bank.
After giving notice, he filed a petition before the Punjab Labour Court No,VII, Gujranwala in which the parties produced evidence, on the perusal of which, learned Labour Court accepted the same by judgment, dated 22-6-1999. An appeal was filed there against which has been dismissed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on 12-2-2000. This petition has been filed there against.
3. Writ Petition No,5653 of 2000. Respondent No,3 was appointed as Electrician on 17-2-1995 by He Punjab Provincial Cooperatives Bank Limited on temporary basis. He continued as such in service when on 2-4-1998 he was issued notice for termination by the Zonal Chief of the Bank. After giving grievance notice, he filed petition before the Punjab Labour Court No,VII, Gujranwala in which the parties produced the evidence, on the -perusal of which, learned Labour Court accepted the same by judgment, dated 22-6-1999. An appeal was filed there against which has been dismissed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on 12-2-2000. This petition has been filed there against.
4. Both the learned counsel state that common questions arise in all the three petitions which can be disposed of together in view of the identity of the matter. Accordingly, these petitions shall stand disposed of through this judgment.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents had been employed on temporary basis for Rahwali Sugar Mills, their services were terminable at any time.
According 'to the learned counsel, they had no right guaranteed under the law which could be enforced through the grievance petition before the Labour Court. It is contended that the view taken by the Labour Court as also the Appellate Tribunal is contrary: to law inasmuch as no length of service without any specific order, for -confirmation/regularization, could be considered to have regularised these employees. Reference has been made to WAPDA and others v. Khanimullah and others (2000 SCM R 879).
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the contesting respondents had been employed by the Punjab Provincial Cooperatives Bank Limited to be governed by the Staff Service Rules of the Bank as employees of the Bank and not of the Rahwali Sugar Mills. Reference has been made to the appointment letter itself which has been issued by the Zonal Chief of the Bank as also the notice for termination which was again issued by the Zonal Chief of the Bank. It is contended with reference to the documents on record annexed with the written statement that the respondents were employed by the. Bank and were Bank employees for all intents and purposes and that the contention of the petitioner that they were employed for Rahwali Sugar Mills only stand belied by the documents on record. It is further contended that findings of facts recorded by the two Tribunals below on this aspect of the matter after due consideration of the evidence do not require interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. Reliance is placed by him on Qayyum Nawaz and 9 others v. N.-W.F.P. Small Industries Development Board, Peshawar through Managing Director, Kohat Road, Peshawar and 4 others (1999 SCM R 2331). His further contention is that petitioner No,1, Rahwali Sugar Mills was never party before the Tribunals below whereas the said Mills has joined as petitioner in this petition for the first time which is a mala fide move to give an impression as if the respondents were Mills employees.
7. Letters of appointment of each of these employees are almost similarly worded which had been issued by the Zonal Chief of the Bank. It makes mention of the 'Staff Service Rules of the Bank' to be applicable, however, they were posted in the Mills. In order to prove that the said respondents were indeed Bank Employees. Attendance Register of the Bank, a certificate from the Workers Union, a card issued by the Bank, a cash voucher of Rs,2,500 as an advance by the Bank for what, recommendation for confirmation and 'few other documents (Exhs.R.1 to R.17) have been relied upon. On appreciation of such evidence coupled with the statement of R.W., Shahzad Babar Deputy Administrator, Rahwali Sugar Mills, the learned Labour Court arrived at the conclusion that "the petitioner was appointed by respondent bank and his services were put at the disposal of Administrator of Rahwali Suggar Mills, where the petitioner performed his duties quite satisfactory and nothing adverse is against him as per his service record. On the contrary the Administrator made recommendations for his regulation and posting in any branch of the respondents bank as is crystal clear from Exh. P.7. The service of the petitioner is governed and controlled by the respondent bank and monthwise salary was also being paid to the petitioner by respondent bank throughout his service." The view so taken by the learned. Labour Court has been affirmed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore which also noted that "transfer of certain officials from the bank to the Mills and again from Mills to the bank has been taking place, and the phenomenon would irresistibly indicate that the Mill was no separate entity. The Mill employees had been granted and they had been in enjoyment of all the privileges and amenities of regular employees of the Bank. Loan facilities, bonus etc. And annual increments were being availed of by the Mill employees, similarly as those were available to the Bank employees." It was further observed that "even if the employees had been rendered redundant or surplus, their services were required to be dispensed with under the provisions of the Standing Orders 12 and 13 and principle of 'last come, first go' had essentially to be observed. Pick and choose at random could not possibly be permitted. Services had to be terminated by orders passed in writing, embodying explicit reasons.
It also noted that "persons junior to the respondents had been retained, in actual practice there is no earthly reason and no valid premises available for removal of the respondents from service.
They have been getting their emoluments from the bank. "Accordingly, the appeal filed by petitioners Nos.2 and 3 was dismissed. These are undoubtedly findings of fact recorded by the two Tribunals below concurrently and are based on proper appreciation of the, evidence which had come on the record. There is no misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence which could nullify the efficacy of these findings.
8. It may be noted that the notice for termination was based on the premises that Rahwali Sugar Mills was being disposed of and the services of these respondents would not be required. As found by the two Tribunals below concurrently, the respondents had not specifically been employed by Rahwali Sugar Mills and had been treated throughout as bank employees, the reasons for the termination was wholly irrelevant. Such a view is supportable by the material brought on record.
9. Reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on WAPDA and others' v. Khanimullah and others (ibid) is not apt inasmuch as in that case, the employees were found to have been engaged for a specific project on the completion of which it was held that their services could be terminated.
The findings recorded by the two Tribunals below and conclusions arrived at in the present case are to the contrary and the respondents have been found to be employees of the Bank.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that Rahwali Sugar Mills was never party before the lower Tribunal, and therefore, cannot file petition before this Court, is also not without substance. In Yousaf Ali v. Fazal -Muhammad Malik and 3 others (1970 SCM R 681), it was observed that a person not party before the lower forum could not be impleaded as party in writ petition.
11. In view of the above, there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings and view taken by the two Tribunals below. This petition accordingly has no merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.