CHAIRMAN, STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and another
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby the respondent's appeal against his removal from service as an Area Manager was accepted. The respondent's services had been terminated after evaluating his performance for only one year against a target, despite an undertaking linked to the provision of his old staff and a Board decision requiring performance evaluation over three years. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal's decision setting aside the termination was justified given the factual circumstances and failure to fulfill implied conditions. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Tribunal rightly found the respondent was victimized, denied his entitlements, and improperly evaluated on a one-year basis rather than three years, and that notifying the public of reinstatement through newspapers was an implied condition. The petition was dismissed, with observations permitting the petitioners to evaluate the respondent's performance over three years in accordance with rules after fulfilling certain undertakings.
- Whether the performance of an Area Manager should be adjudged on the basis of one year or three years according to the Board decision?
- Is the notification of an employee's reinstatement in newspapers an implied condition when their previous termination was widely published?
- Whether a service tribunal's decision on a question of fact involving personal grievance warrants interference by the Supreme Court when no question of law of public importance is involved?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against judgment dated 6-10-2000 of the Federal Service Tribunal through which appeal filed by the respondent against his removal from service has been accepted.
2. Respondent was working with the petitioners as Area Manager when his services were terminated on account of unsatisfactory performance. However, subsequently through a compromise, he was reinstated in service through their appointment letter dated 21-3-1997 with an undertaking given by him that he would try his level best to achieve the business of Rs,18,00,000 first year premium, in case his old staff, which had since been transferred and posted at Kohat, was made available to him.
3. It appears from the show-cause notice that performance of the respondent was evaluated only for the year 1998 and it was found that as against required business of Rs,18,00,000 he had only earned an amount of Rs,65,569, therefore, on this short ground, his services were terminated after issuing him show-cause notice and obtaining his reply.
4. We have gone through the reply to the said show-cause notice, in which the respondent had raised a number of questions and grievances as regards non-payment of legal dues and office expenses etc.
5. Respondent filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal against order of termination of his service, which has been accepted through the impugned order on the ground that, according to undertaking given by the respondent, old staff, which had been posted at Kohat, was not made available to respondent and the respondent was subjected to victimization. He was not paid his other entitlements and it was made impossible for him to work against the post with peace of mind.
6. It was also observed that according to the petitioner's own case highlighted in the order, through which his departmental appeal was dismissed, according to the Board decision performance of Area Managers was to be adjudged on the basis of three years' performance and not one year's performance as had been done in this case.
7. We have also observed that previous termination of the services of the respondent was got published by the petitioners in the newspapers informing pubic at large that they should not deal with him as employee of the petitioners, which obviously had consequence, to render him helpless to earn the business, unless through another publication; the pubic was notified that the respondent had been reinstated. But it was not done though the respondent requested the petitioners to do so.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it was nowhere a condition in the undertaking submitted by the respondent that the petitioners shall notify his reinstatement through newspapers.
9. The contention, in our considered view has no force. It was not necessary to incorporate in the terms of reinstatement of the respondent that the petitioners shall notify through newspapers to the public that they could deal with the respondent for it was an implied condition, which should have been satisfied by publication of notice in newspapers that the respondent had been reinstated in service of the petitioners.
10. No question of law of public importance is either involved or made out in this petition. It is a case of personal grievance and a question of fact has been decided by Service Tribunal to which no exception can be taken.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners may be allowed to proceed against the respondent on the basis of evaluation of three years' performance, which course may be kept open.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, undertakes that respondent shall be provided those available members of staff, out of the staff originally attached with him, for some of them my have left the service or retired or otherwise promoted to higher posts. He also undertakes that a public notice shall be issued in the newspapers throughout the country that the respondent was an employee of the petitioners and he can deal with the business of the petitioner.
13. In case the said conditions are fulfilled and other dues of the respondent are paid 'during the service, the petitioners may according to rules and regulations evaluate performance of the respondent of three years hereafter and thereafter, if necessary, proceed in accordance with law.
14. This petition has no merits, which is hereby dismissed subject to above observations.
Cited by 5 cases
- CHAIRMAN, STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION and others vs HAMAYUN IRFAN and 2 others 2010 SCMR 1495
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and others vs Syed 2010 SCMR 1381
- CHAIRMAN, STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION Versus HAMAYUN IRFAN 2010 PLC(CS) 1183
- CHAIRMAN, STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION and others vs HAMAYUN IRFAN and others 2011 PLJ SC 100
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Versus Syed HASSAN ALI SHAH 2010 PLC(CS) 789