Seguimiento dado a las recomendaciones del Comité y del Consejo de Administración - Informe núm. 389, Junio 2019

Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body

1. 62. The Committee last examined this case concerning restrictions on the trade union rights of banking sector employees following the enactment of section 27-B of the Banking Companies (Amendment) Act, 1997, at its October 2017 meeting [see 383rd Report, paras 66–69]. On that occasion the Committee firmly urged the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that all pending cases of dismissed workers, including Messrs Assad Shahbaz Bhatti, Malik Arshad Mehmood, Zulfiqaar Hussain Awan, Mazhar Iqbal Sial, and Nasir Qayyumare, be resolved without delay and to provide full information on the judgments rendered. The Committee also requested the Government to indicate whether the heirs of Mr Maqsood Ahmad Farooqui had received the relevant compensation following the decision of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in Lahore on 26 January 2011, and to indicate the amount thereof. Finally the Committee recalls that it drew the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) to the legislative aspects of this case (the need to amend the Banking Companies (Amendment) Act).
2. 63. In its communication dated 24 November 2018, the complainant, United Bank Limited (UBL) Employees Union, alleges a total lack of progress in the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations in this case. It emphasizes, in particular, that no measures have been taken with regard to the amendment of section 27-B of the Banking Companies (Amendment) Act nor with regard to the reinstatement of dismissed trade unionists in the banking sector since the Committee’s first examination of the case in 2001.
3. 64. In its communications dated 29 May, 7 August, 28 September and 2 October 2018, the Government indicates that, regarding the pending cases of dismissed workers, the matter was taken up with the bank for comments, which had replied that none of the employees involved in this case were members of any union and that the services of the officers were terminated by invoking the relevant clause of their appointment letters duly accepted by them at the time of appointment. As per that clause, either party can terminate the contract by giving a notice or making payment in lieu of a notice period. Since the services of the said officers were no longer required, the bank invoked the clause and separated them from the service. The Government adds that most of the dismissal cases (involving Messrs Assad Shahbaz Bhatti, Malik Arshad Mehmood, Zulfiqaar Hussain Awan, Mazhar Iqbal Sial, and Nasir Qayyumare) have already been disposed of and the bank is contesting the cases which are still pending in various courts.
4. 65. The Government further indicates that the heirs of Mr Maqsood A. Farooqui and the bank have reached an out-of-court settlement and provides a copy of the relevant pay orders.
5. 66. Finally, the Government reiterates that any amendment to section 27-B of the Banking Companies (Amendment) Act would expose banks to illegal activities.
6. 67. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government but observes with deep concern the Government’s indication that some of the cases are still pending, 18 years since the dismissals. The Committee is therefore bound to reiterate that the cases of these dismissed workers is a striking example of the principle justice delayed is justice denied. The Committee once again requests the Government to ensure that all pending cases of dismissed workers are resolved without delay and to provide full information and copies of the judgments rendered, including those that have already been disposed of.
7. 68. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that the heirs of Mr Maqsood Ahmad Farooqui reached an out-of-court settlement with the bank and that the agreed upon settlement dues have been paid.
8. 69. Finally, the Committee observes that, within the framework of its regular supervision, the CEACR has continued to examine the legislative aspects of this case.