1. ' Brief facts necessary for the dispoal of this appeal are that-vide appointment order, dated 10th November 1974, by the Vice-President of National Bank of Pakistan petitioner was appointed as temporary Godown Keeper for 6 months with the condition that his services could be terminated earlier without notice. His services were terminated on 10th March 1975. Against this grievance, he came to this Court. Evidence in this case was recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court.
2. ' His services were terminated by the Manager of Alipur Chatha Bus Stand Branch. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended in the first place that Staff Services Rules, 1973, are applicable to the employees of National Bank of Pakistan and according to those rules there is no concept of temporary appointment and at the same time services of an employee could only be terminated by the appointing authority and in this respect he has placed a photostat copy of an order passed by me in my appellate jurisdiction in a case National Brink of Pakistan v. Mr. Pcrvaiz. This is a case of similar nature except that in the cited case respondent had served for more than 6 months, whereas in the instant case services of the petitioner have been terminated before completion of 6 months' service.
3. ' Learned counsel for the respondent has argued the case from a different prospective than in the cited case. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that terms and conditions of service are mentioned in the appointment letter. Bank has to engage temporary Godown Keeper for 3 months or 4 months in the paddy season. Bank cannot advance loans for more than 3 or 4 months against security of stocks of paddy. Services of the petitioner were terminated alongwith other 57 Godown Keepers. According to the terms and conditions of appointment and according to those terms petitioner has no guaranteed right to come to the Court for his re-instatement If there is no provision for appointment of termporary employees in the Staff Services Rules then appointment was also not made under those rules. Only terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letter would govern the instant case and according to those terms and conditions no guaranteed right has been left for re-instatement of the petitioner. I perfectly agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Case which is relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is somewhat different. In that case initial appointment was made for 6 months but the respondent was kept perhaps for more than that period, so in that case conditions of service mentioned m the appointment letter no more remained governing that case and automatically staff services rules came into play.
4. ' In that view of the matter I find there is no force in the petition. It is, therefore, dismissed.