JUSTICE (R) JALAL-UD-DIN AKBARJI, CHAIRMAN. - We propose to dispose of all the afore-mentioned 33 (thirty-three) appeals by this single judgment, as facts are the same. The appellants had find appeals in the year 1999 and one in 1999. Out of which 1 6 appeals came-up for hearing before a Bench of this Tribunal at Islamabad and dismissed in limine on 4.1 1.1 998, 19.8.1998 and 10.4.1998, because of delay in filing the appeals. The August Supreme Court of Pakistan vide judgment announced on 11.12.2000 ' condoned the delay in filing the appeals andremitted the cases in the appeals for decision afresh on merits and in accordance with the Iaw in the light of the observations. The August Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment discussed the contract employment of the appellants in the respondents- Corporation namely Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the respondent-corporation') by reproducing the contract of employment on the appeals and specially the clauses of 'Termination Simplictor' and 'Dismissal'. Before we proceed further, the relevant paras 16 and 18 are reproduced for the sake of convenience:- "16. A bare reading of the above provisions shows that under the terms and conditions provided in the contract of service the employer has the right to terminate the services of an employee without assigning any reason, throughout the currency of his service, in lieu of payment of one month's salary, In case of dismissal, however, for reasons for misconduct or improper conduct, it is incumbent upon the employer to provide an opportunity to the employee to explain, in writing, the allegations against him. The proviso to dismissal clause states in unequivocal terms that the employee shall be provided an opportunity to explain the allegations against him."
"18. The above document, when read as a whole, would indubitably show that ordinarily an employee once recruited after successful completion of his probationary period is entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years except where he is removed earlier on the ground of misconduct or improper conduct. The employer has also retained the power to terminate the services of an employee in the exigencies of service. The question whether the termination of the appellants/petitioner's services was 'simpliciter' or 'dismissal in the garb of termination', necessitates an enquiry into facts which cannot be undertaken in these proceedings and that this aspect of the matter was not gone into by the Tribunal."
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellants were appointed and they continued in service when their services were terminated simpliciter according to clause 14 of the contract of employment. Learned counsel pointed out that the respondent-Company has admitted that the performances of the appellants were not satisfactory and/or the appellants were political appointees and, therefore, their services were terminated. Learned counsel contended that according to the contract of service, the appellants services cannot be terminated simpliciter in case their performances is not satisfactory and/or the appellants are political, appointees. Learned counsel referred to Marketing of Petroleum Products (Federal Control) Act, 1974 and submitted that the appellants terms and conditions and secured by the letter of contract and their services can be terminated simpliciter but if the termination simpliciter arises out of poor performances and are political appointees. Then they are to be proceeded under the clause of 'dismissal from service'. The order of termination simpliciter is in violation of the contract of service and the order of termination of services as such is not in good faith but smack of mala fide and victimization. The appellant and as well as the respondent- Company is bound by the letter of contract in absence of any statutory or non-statutory rules of service. Learned counsel next contended that colorable exercise of powers in respect of employment of a corporation employee is against the principle of natural justice and also in violation of the whole terms and conditions of service as contained in the letter of appointment by contract.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Company (Raja Haq Nawaz) referred to the judgment of the August Supreme Court of Pakistan and submitted that in para 14 of the judgment, the terms and conditions of service of the appellants are wholly regulated by the letter of contract, It was next contended that in this situation of the cases in the appeals Act XVII of 1974 would not apply to the terms and conditions of service of the appellant. Learned counsel vehemently contended that all the judgment referred to by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan are not applicable to the cases of the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondent- Company submitted that the appellants were either Management Trainees or regular employees and they have been appointed on political consideration. The so-called test and interviews were fake and an exercise to justify the appointments of the appellants.
4. Pakistan State Oil Company Limited is a body corporate established under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The Company as such is controlled by Act of Parliament i.e. Marketing of Petroleum Products (Federal Control) Act, 1974 (Act No. XVII of 1974). The relevant provision of Section 4 of the Act over rides anything contained in the Companies Act, 1913 and the Company as such is to be managed by the Board of Management constituted under Section 7 of the Act. The Board of Management may appoint officers, servants, experts and consultants as it may deemed fit under /Section 10 of the Act. In case of respondent- corporation, the Managing Director appointed under Section 6 of the Act is to exercise the functions and powers of the Company' subject to orders and directions of the Federal Government and of the Board of Management.
5. The above-mentioned appellants were appointed in Management cadre of-the respondent- Company and their services were terminated by the following letter: "Dear Sir, Please take notice, in accordance with the terms of conditions of your employment letter No. SA/7010/79020, dated 10.2.96, your employment/services are hereby terminated with immediate effect by giving you one month "gross salary in lieu of one month" notice of termination together with all dues and full benefits as per your entitlements.
You are hereby further directed to please collect all your dues and benefits as applicable on any working day during normal working hours from our Payroll Section.
The objections find by respondent Corporation beside the case-law and arguments have in substance stated as under:- "4. That only those employees and Management Trainees have been retrenched who had failed in written examination viva voce and were not capable to work. No penal/disciplinary action has been taken against any such employee having acquired job through influence, pressure or otherwise but services of such persons have been terminated strictly in accordance with terms and conditions of service and making them payment in lieu of notice."
In this view of the matter, the termination of services of the appellants were not simpliciter but tainted as above-mentioned and colorable exercise of powers in termination of services of the appellants under the contract of service, In respectful obedience of the judgment of August Supreme Court of Pakistan, the following order was passed on 11.6.2001: "For the fact and reasons recorded alter on, the appeals are accepted and the appellants are reinstated in service of the respondent-Company with all back benefits, In case the respondent- Company wants to proceed against any of the appellant for his appointment as political nominee and/or inefficiency then the respondent- Company will be at liberty to terminate their services after meaningful show-cause notices and personal hearings of the appellants or any of the appellants. No order as to costs."
The orders of termination of services of the appellants are, therefore, set aside within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, for the above- mentioned facts and reasons. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.