The Federal Constitutional Court held that pensionary benefits constitute a vested, enforceable, legal and fundamental right of a retired employee and cannot be withheld except by the order of a Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law.


A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, and comprising Justice Ali Baqir Najafi and Syed Arshad Hussain Shah, ruled that in a petition of the National Bank of Pakistan’s employee (petitioner), seeking implementation of his reinstatement order by the Labour Court.


The judgment, authored by Justice Arshad, said that there are clear directions of the superior judiciary that all pension papers must be completed and processed at least six months prior to an employee's date of retirement.


It further said that total service (of the petitioner) with effect from his initial appointment i.e. 1.7.1992 till retirement i.e. 21.5.2017 comes approximately 25 years, thus, he qualifies for pensionary benefits.


The case pertains to the retirement/pensionary benefits of the petitioner, who served as driver with the Bank. He was appointed as driver on daily wages vide appointment letter dated 1.7.1992. Having been disengaged from service with effect from 15.6.1995, the petitioner filed a grievance petition before the Single Bench of the NIRC, which on 21.10.1996 directed the Bank to allow the petitioner to join his duties.


The Bank (respondent) challenged the order before the High Court, which remanded the matter back to the single Bench of the NIRC. Consequently, the petitioner was relieved of his duty vide order dated 23.9.2004.


By that time, section 2A was inserted in the Service Tribunals Act 1973, therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. However, during the pendency of this appeal, by virtue of the Supreme Court judgment (PLD 2006 SC 602), Section 2A was omitted.


The petitioner, therefore again filed a grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court, Bahawalpur, which on 18-04-2008 directed the Bank to reinstate and regularize the petitioner in service with all back benefits. The Bank assailed the order before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (PLAT). The petitioner also approached the PLAT for implementation of the Labour Court’s order.


After promulgation of Industrial Relations Act 2012, both the appeals were transferred to Full Bench of NIRC. During pendency of these appeals, the petitioner filed writ petition before the High Court seeking directions to implement the order of his reinstatement. The High Court, however, disposed of his petition on 2.1.2013. Not satisfied with the LHC order, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, which on 05-07-2013 directed the respondent to implement the Labour Court’s order.


In compliance with the SC direction, reinstatement order of the petitioner was issued on 19.7.2013. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner stood retired from service with effect from 21.5.2017. He was extended the benefits of gratuity and the benevolent fund grant. However, he has been denied his monthly pension and other pensionary benefits i.e. G.P. Fund, insurance and leave encashment etc. on the premise that his qualifying service for pensionary purposes is only eight years and nine months.


The judgment stated that letter dated 19.07.2013 issued by the Regional Head Office, the petitioner was reinstated in service on the same terms and conditions as were applicable prior to his dismissal, subject to the final outcome of Appeal No.129/09 dated 21.10.2009, in compliance with the Labour Court’s order dated 18.04.2008.


The judgment noted that the said reinstatement order (of Labour Court), by its express terms, signifies reinstatement with continuity of service and entitlement to full back benefits. It said the reinstatement order, passed on 18.4.2008 by the Labour Court i.e. 17 years before, was not fully implemented owing to the misinterpretation of the various court orders by the Bank.