1996 P L C (C.S.

) 433
[Karachi High Court]
Before Abdul Rahim Qazi and Dr. Ghous Muhammad, JJ
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
Versus
SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI and 2 others.
Constitutional Petition No. D-76 of 1986, decided on 22nd June, 1995.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---
----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of---Concurrent finding of fact of two Courts
below, would not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
(b) National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Services Rules, 1973-
----National Bank of Pakistan (Staff),Service Rules, 1980---Industrial Relations Ordinance
(XXIII of 1969), Ss.. 1(3), 25-A & 35---West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment
(Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), Ss. 1(4) & 2(i)---Statutory Rules---National Bank of
Pakistan (Staff) Services Rules were first promulgated in year 1973 and subsequently in year
1980---Rules of 1980, though framed by Central Board of Governors, but having not been
approved by Government, could not be treated to be statutory rules, but at the most same could
be said to be only departmental instructions, whereas Rules, 1973 were statutory rules---Rights
of parties, thus would be governed by the provisions as provided under the 1973 Rules, but
forum for seeking remedy therefore would be Labour Court under procedure provided by Labour
Laws.
National Bank of Pakistan v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1990 PLC 197 and
National Bank of Pakistan v. Sin" Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others 1990 PLC 593 ref.
Partab Rai for Petitioner.
Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Salahuddin H. Ahmed for Respondent No. 3
Date of hearing: 18th April, 1995.
JUDGMENT
ABDUL RAHIM QAZI, J.---This petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by
respondent No. 1 on 17-7-1986 confirming the earlier order passed by respondent No.2 with the
modification that the respondent No.3 was directed to be re-instated in service with 50 per cent.
of back benefits. Briefly the facts are that the present respondent No. 3 being a Senior Head
Cashier and lastly posted at petitioner's Jati Branch used to perform manual and clerical duties
which included making of entries in the various books of the bank, balancing the ledger, entering
in the general correspondent, documentation etc. The case of the present respondent No.3
therefore is that his services are covered by the provisions of Industrial and Commercial
Employment (Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance and ail
other relevant labour laws including the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 hereinafter referred
to as the I.R.O. According to respondent No.3 he performed his duty with utmost honesty,
integrity and efficiency and with the result that due to his vigilance an attempt made by two
persons to encash about Rupees 2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) through forged documents failed.
The contention of respondent No.3 is that in September, 1980 while he was posted as Senior
Head Cashier, the Bank Manager Mr Qamaruddin was involved in all sorts of corrupt activities
and he was also a man of objectionable character. According to respondent No.3 the said
Manager had removed one bag of golden ornaments of the borrower but the present respondent
No.3 was charge-sheeted. However, after an enquire the services of the present respondent No.3
were dismissed vide order dated 15-3-1983. The respondent No.3 adopted the legal procedure
and ultimately submitted grievance petition before Labour Court which was allowed and he was
directed to be re-instated with full back benefits. 117'
Being aggrieved the present petitioner preferred the appeal before respondent No. 1 who after
hearing the arguments of the Advocates for the parties was pleased to dismiss the said appeal
with the modification that the present respondent No. 3 was allowed only 50 percent of back
benefits. Being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
We have heard Mr. Partab Rai, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Salahuddin H. Ahmad,
Advocate for respondent No.3 while none is present for the remaining respondents. The main
contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the present petitioner has been involved
in removal of the bag containing ornaments which facts stand proved from his conduct as he has
made good the losses. The other contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the services of
the respondent No.3 are governed under the statutory rules of service promulgated in 1973 and
1980 and, therefore, the provisions of the Ordinance as well as I.R.O. are not applicable and it is
only N.I.R.C. who will have the jurisdiction in the matter. As regards the first point, we may
observe that there being concurrent findings of facts by the two Courts, we would not indulge
into the same exercise again but would maintain findings of the two Courts on the same point. As
regard the question of applicability of the provisions of Statutory Rules, we have heard two
counsel at length. We have also gone through the case-law cited by the learned Advocates at the
Bar and our findings are contained in the paragraph following hereinafter.
The question therefore that arises is as to whether the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Services
Rules are statutory rules or not. These rules are hereinafter referred to as the Rules. These rules
were first promulgated in the year 1973 and subsequently in the year 1980. The Rules of 1980,
though framed by Central Board of Governors but not having the approval. of the Government `'
cannot be treated to be statutory rules but at the most the same could be said to be only
departmental instructions whereas the Rules of 1973 are statutory rules. From the above it
emanates that rights of the parties would be governed by the provisions as provided under the
Rules but the forum for seeking remedy therefore would be before the Labour Court under the
procedure provided by labour laws. In the case of (National Bank of Pakistan v. Sindh Labour
Appellate Tribunal and others) reported in 1.990 PLC (L.C.) 197 a Division Bench of this Court
in a judgment authored by one of us (Abdul Rahim Kazi, J). It has been held:
"We cannot agree with the above contention of learned counsel for respondents. Paragraphs 26
and 27 of the Award of 2nd Wage Commission have clearly said that the Service Rules of
petitioner-Bank were considered and also that the Service Rules framed by the Wage
Commission of 1975 would apply when no Statutory Rules exist. The petitioner-Bank is
established under the Ordinance of 1949 and is managed under the authority of the Federal
Government. Therefore, the Rules framed by the Wage Commission or the Central Board
without the approval of the authority of the Government cannot be equated with the Statutory
Rules. We, therefore, hold that the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1973 hold
the field and that the Statutory Rules of Service do exist.
Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho, the, learned Advocate-General, Sindh, appearing on Court notice, has
also submitted that it is the Rules of 1973 as framed under the Ordinance of 1949 which hold the
'field and not the Rules as famed by the Wage Commission of 1975.'"
Again in the same case it has been held:
"It may be pointed out that the petitioner-Bank is one of the Banks nationalized under the Banks
(Nationalization) Act, 1974. Section 2 of the Act provides that it shall have the effect
notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. Section 5(1) of
the said Act lays down that the ownership, management and control of all Banks shall stand
transferred to and vest in the Federal Government. From these provisions it can safely be
construed that the Nationalized Banks are the establishment carried on by or under the authority
of the Federal Government. It may also be seen that word 'carried on' is used In the proviso to
section 1(4) of the Ordinance of 1968 and not the word 'controlled' or 'run'.'
In the same case while considering above two points it has been held: ,
"The upshot of the above discussion is that we hold that the petitioner Bank is carried on by or
under the authority of the Federal Government and that the Statutory Rules of 1973 do exist and
are applicable. The provisions of the Ordinance of 1968 are, therefore, not applicable to the
present case but the services of the employees of the petitioner are governed by the National
Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Rules, 1973. "
In the same case while dealing with the provisions of section 25-A of the I.R.O. it has been held:
"Although the provisions of the Ordinance of 1968 are not applicable to the case of the
respondents for the reason that their services are governed by the National Bank of Pakistan
(Staff) Service Rules, 1973, they cannot be deprived of the remedies available to them as under
the provisions of the I.R.O.,, section 25-A of the 4R.0., is the provision that provides for the
forum before which the workman can take his matter for the redress. It would be pertinent to
point out here that the words ' under any law' as mentioned in subsection (1) of section 25A of
the I.R.O., would include the aforesaid Service Rules of 1973 as these rules being the Statutory
Rules have the force of law. Further subsection (4) of section 25-A of I.R.O., enables the
workers to take the matter before the Labour Court."
This judgment was also followed by the same Division Bench in the case of (National Bank of
Pakistan v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others) reported in 1990 PLC (L.C.) 593. In
view of the above case-law and the consistent view of the Division Bench of this Court, we find
no reasons to deviate from the said conclusion. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present
petition which is accordingly dismissed with costs.
H.B.T./N-560/K Petition dismissed.