KARACHI, Aug 26: The Federal Service Tribunal has reinstated 39 employees of the United Bank Limited, Karachi zone. The appellants submitted that they were employed against permanent vacancies of assistants, messengers and watchmen in the early 1990s but were dismissed by verbal orders in 1996. Their appeals were dismissed in 1997 as the tribunal held that insertion of Section 2A of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973, which declared bank employees ‘civil servants’ in 1996, could not be given retrospective effect. The Supreme Court reversed the order and ruled that the provision was retrospective. The appellants approached the FST under the SC decision.

The appellants alleged that they were sacked on their joining the UBL Labour Union, the bank’s collective bargaining agent. No showcause notice was issued. In fact, there was no termination order in writing. Each one of them served a grievance notice, but there was no response from the bank management. They said their dismissal from service was in clear violation of standing order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.

The bank management replied that the appellants were “temporary, casual workers”, who were not issued appointment letters. There was no employer-employee or master-servant relationship between them and the bank. They were ‘thrust’ on the bank by the union chief, Abdul Aziz Memon. Finally, the bank had since been privatized and tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeals.

The FST bench, comprising Qazi Muhammad Hussain Siddiqui and Rashid Ali Mirza, held on Thursday that the appeals were competent and that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear them. The respondent bank, a commercial establishment, was obliged to act in accordance with standing orders of 1968. By simply sacking the employees as ‘casual labourers’, the appellants could not be deprived of the protection afforded by the standing orders.

Setting aside the oral termination orders, the bench directed the respondent bank to regularize, within a month, the appellants’ services from the date of their joining. No back benefits were allowed as the appellants were partly responsible for their plight inasmuch as they made no effort to secure their appointment letters. There was no order as to costs. Advocate Mushtaq Ahmed Shaikh represented the appellants and Chaudhry Mohammad Jamil the UBL.

Opinion

Editorial

Doctor attacked
09 Jun, 2026

Doctor attacked

AN act of reprehensible violence has shaken the medical community. On Saturday, an employee of the Provincial Civil...
AJK flare-up
Updated 09 Jun, 2026

AJK flare-up

The situation started deteriorating after a trader affiliated with the JAAC was reportedly shot in an altercation with law-enforcers.
Fault lines
09 Jun, 2026

Fault lines

THE April 8 ceasefire that halted hostilities between Israel and Iran has encountered its most serious test yet....
Soft on traders
08 Jun, 2026

Soft on traders

THE Fixed Tax Asaan Scheme for traders with an annual turnover of up to Rs200m has been designed as a ‘pragmatic...
Ceasefire in name
Updated 08 Jun, 2026

Ceasefire in name

Both sides accuse the other of violating the truce that was supposed to halt the conflict in April, yet neither appears willing to abandon negotiations altogether.
Damaged childhoods
08 Jun, 2026

Damaged childhoods

CHILD abuse is so prevalent that the UN ranked Pakistan as the least safe country for children. Even so, more than...