1. ' I intend to dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.592 of 1998 to 598 of 1998, Writ Petition No,600 of 1998, Writ Petition No,601 of 1998 and Writ Petition No,719 of 1998 by a common judgment as an identical question of law and facts are raised in these Constitutional petitions.
2. The facts giving rise to these petitions are that the petitioners were employed by U.B.L.
2. Respondent No,2 and were holding different positions in local branches in England. Their services were terminated on 28-11-1997 except the petitioner in Writ Petition No,597 of 1998 whose services were terminated on 3-9-1997 under the Redundancy Policy carried out by the respondent Bank.
3. The petitioners claim the similar package/benefits offered to UBL employees serving in Pakistan with the prayer as under:- ' It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the writ petition be accepted and the respondents be directed to afford and pray to the petitioner, the same benefits have been or would be paid to the respondents' forcibly terminated employees stationed in Pakistan."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are being meted out discriminatory treatment these Writ Petitions may be disposed of in terms of United Bank Limited v.
4. Shahmim Ahmed Khan and 41 others (PLD 1999 SC 990).
5. ' Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the same submitting that the judgment is not applicable to the petitioners as they were employed by the Bank in England. Under the law prevalent in England, the petitioners sought their remedies before the Industrial Tribunal, being unsuccessful cannot turn around and claim the benefits of the retrenchment scheme applicable to the employees of United Bank based in Pakistan. Different sets of service rules were applicable to the employees recruited and based in Pakistan and to those employed in United Kingdom.
4. I have gone through the record, I find that there are two classes of employees of the Bank:--
(a) Pakistan based employees who are recruited in Pakistan and liable to serve in the Bank anywhere in the world as may be decided by the competent authority. Their services are governed by the United Bank Ltd. (Staff)' Service Rules, 1981.
(b) The other category of the employees are the Foreign bases employees employed locally from United Kingdom. Their terms and conditions of employment are governed in accordance with the local laws.
6. ' The record reveals that the petitioners were employed in England. A copy of the terms and conditions of employment issued in pursuant to section 1 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act, 1978 (The Act applicable in England) has been placed on record as an Annexure-F. Different terms and conditions were applicable to the petitioners than to the staff of the UBL to whom the United Bank Ltd. (Staff) Service Rules, 1981 are applicable. It is also stated in the written statement that the petitioners were paid redundancy pay in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Employment Rights Act, 1996. As per provisions of the said Act one week's pay (L 210 per week at the relevant time) for each completed year service under the age of 41 and 1-1/2 week's pay for each completed year service above the age of 41 years to a maximum of 20 weeks.
7. These facts have not been denied by the petitioners by filing any rejoinder.
8. ' The record further reveals that in the beginning of 1997 the respondent-Bank had 11 branches in UK owing to restructuring of the Bank's operations in UK. Following financial losses, the Bank closed 5 branches from March, 1997 to July, 1997 at Luton, Houns low, Oldham, Glasgow and Commercial Street, London. Redundancies arising from the closure of the branches alongwith other reductions of the staff reduced the strength of employees in UK from 101 to 78. Due to further redundancies in November, 1997 staffing levels were reduced further to 59. The petitioner except Mr. Tabani were all employed at Mark Lane, London Branch which was the largest single branch in UK and also responsible for the centralized payments system for all branches in UK, for investment, dealings regional office accounting and trade finance. The petitioners were given 'consultation' by the General Manager on 11-3-1997 and 7th of May, 1997. The petitioners were represented by Mr. J.
9. Brawley, Assistant Secretary of Banking Insurance and Finance Union (BIFU). Redundancy Selection Criteria Circular was issued on 19-2-1997. An incentive was offered to volunteers of a payment equivalent to an extra 25 per cent. Of their statutory redundancy entitlement. Only two of the employees accepted voluntary redundancy. Mr. Tabani in Petition No,592 of 1998 challenged his termination before the Industrial Tribunal (Bedford). The same was dismissed on 3-3-1998. The other petitioners assailed their termination before the Employment Tribunal. The parties reached a compromise and a consent order was passed on 2-11-1998. The unanimous order of the Tribunal reads as under:--
(i) By consent the respondents are held to have unfairly dismissed all nine applicants by reason of their unfair selection for redundancy.
(ii) By consent the claims by Mr. J. Ayub, Mr. M.S.S. Butt and Mr. Z.A. Khan that they were unfairly dismissed for trade union activities, are dismissed on withdrawal, of those claims by those.
10. Applicants.
(iii) By consent the claims of breach of contract by all nine applicants are dismissed on withdrawal by those nine applicants.
(iv) By consent the Tribunal makes' no award of compensation or any other remedy for unfair dismissal because the parties have reached an agreement on compensation which has been signed by or on behalf of all the parties.
(v) Liberty to restore these proceedings on or before 4th December, 1998 if the terms of the agreed settlement have not been implemented by 18th November, 1998.
11. ' Under this consent order the petitioners were paid L 8000 each. The petitioners received the payments/benefits as under:-
(i) K. Tabbani ' He was paid the statutory minimum of L 411.78 and payment in lieu of notice as L 411.78. He was offered an alternative position as a typist/clerk, which he did not accept by the deadline of 19-6- 1997. The job was offered on the same terms and conditions as his job to Luton.
(ii) J. Ayub ' He was paid the statutory reluctancy payment in the sum of L 3990. He was also entitled to 12 weeks' pay in lieu of notice being L 3649.44. He was paid a total of L 7639.44. He was entitled to payment for 17 days accrued holiday amounting of L 1034.01.
(iii) M. Hanif ' He was entitled to the minimum of L 4200 and 12 weeks' pay in lieu of notice being L 3446.04, therefore, he was paid a total of L 7646.04. He also received 153 lays accrued holiday of L 8787.23.
(iv) Mrs. N. Ali.
12. ' She was paid a redundancy payment of L 5355 and 12 weeks' pay in lieu of notice being L 3872.40, making a total L 9227.40.
(v) Mr.Z. Khan ' He was paid a redundancy payment of 2625 and 12 weeks' pay in lieu of notice being L 3091.32, thus making a total of 5716.32. He was also paid for 47 days holiday accrued a sum of L 242.48.
(vi) Matloob Chugtai ' He was offered an alternative position of Recoveries Officer at Machester, which he refused to accept. He was paid the statutory minimum of L 4410 and pay in lieu of notice of L 4172.04.
13. (viii)Mrs. R. Farooqi ' Redundancy payment of L 4620 and 12 weeks' pay in lieu of notice being L 3613.92, making a total of L 8233.92. She was also entitled to payment for 16 days accrued holiday that had not been taken.
(viii) Perveen Akhtar ' She was entitled to redundancy payment of 3990 and 12 weeks' pay in lieu of notice being -L 4449.96 thus making a total L 8439.96. She was also entitled to 53 days accrued holiday pay.
(ix) Muhammad Butt ' He was paid a redundancy payment of L 4725 and 12 weeks' pay in lieu of notice being L 3654.36, thus making a total of L 8379.36. He was also paid 26 days accrued holiday pay.
(x) Naseer Siddiqui ' He was paid redundancy payment of L 3885 and 12 weeks' pay in lieu of notice being L 3518.84 making a total L 7403.64. He was also paid accrued holiday pay of 292 days.
14. ' The above stated facts leave not a scintilla of doubt that the petitioners availed all their remedies, under the laws of England, available to them, and received the payment/benefits under the said law. They cannot be allowed to have a volte face and say that the benefits given to the emnloyees of the Bank based in Pakistan should also be offered to them. They were employed in England/U.K.
15. And their services were governed by the local laws. Having accepted the compensation no benefit can be given to them in accordance with the retrenchment policy applicable in Pakistan.
16. ' The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case United Bank Limited through President v. Shahmim Ahmed Khan and 41 others (PLD 1999 SC 990) held that Bank being a commercial organization had to be run on commercial consideration. It having suffered continuous losses for the last several years, it was open to the management to reorganize its working to improve its commercial viability which include the right to dispense with the services of the staff which was found in excess or necessity.
17. No exception could be taken to the retrenchment of the employees if such an action of the Bank was motivated by commercial considerations, and for reasons to run the Bank on profitable lines.
5. For what has been discussed above, these petitions have no merit and are dismissed with no order as to costs.