2000 PLP 497 (PLC)

3. The respondents filed their written statement and at the very outset objected the maintainability of the cases of the petitioners with the view of insertion of section 2‑A in the Services Tribunal Act, 1973 and on merit also contended that the respondents have the authority to question the age limit of the petitioners and also to oust them from their employment on the basis of the same.

4. I have heard the arguments of both the parties at length and during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention towards Case No.4‑A(100) of 1997‑L titled as Liaqat Ali v. Post Office whereby the petitioner also challenged the same act of unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents and during the pendency of the said case, the Deputy. Director (Adorn) passed the order dated 28‑6‑1999 addressed to Post Master General Southern Circle Punjab Multan with the order of granting relaxation in upper age limit in favour of Mr. Liaqat Ali, the petitioners in the aforesaid case for the period involved and thus, orders of the Director‑General of Pakistan Post Office Department dated 28‑6‑1999 Mr. Liaqat Ali withdrew the aforesaid petition for having his grievance redressed. This case has been shown in the title of this order at serial No. l because the said Deputy Director (Adorn) was directed to appear on 15‑9‑1999. An extract or the letter of the Director‑General Pakistan Post Office Department dated 28‑6‑1999 is reproduced hereunder:‑‑‑ Reference your office Letter No. Staff. RE‑3 Genl/Co. II dated 1‑12‑1998 on the above noted subject.

2. It is informed that the Government has granted 5 years age relaxation vide Notification No.586(I)/99, dated 18‑5‑1999 (copy enclosed) and as such the candidates upto the age of 30 years will be eligible for appointment in the next recruitment. Further, the competent Authority has granted relaxation in upper age limit in favour of Mr. Liaqat Ali for the period involved. In view of above Mr. Liaqat Ali may be allowed to continue in service till next recruitment and give him an opportunity to go through the prescribed procedure on merit for regular appointment as per rules."

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed on record copies of the orders of the Director‑General Post Office dated 23‑6‑1992 whereby the Director‑General Post Officer granted the relaxation in upper age limit by 10 years, 6 months and 2 days, to Mst. Akhtar‑un‑Nisa, LDC who was appointed on 29‑3‑1982 and also granted relaxation in upper age limit by 3 years, 11 months and 15 days to Mr. Muhammad Akbar. Boiler Operator on 23‑9‑1992 who was appointed as such w.e.f. 16‑12‑1979. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the petitioners are met with worst discriminatory treatment and are entitled to the same treatment which is being extended by the respondents to other colleagues of the petitioners which has been granted to the petitioners under Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The learned counsel for the petitioners also referring the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan placed in PLC 1996 (C.S) 927 as well as judgment of Honourable Lahore High Court placed in 1997 PLC 562 in support of his contention, which are reproduced as under:‑‑ "Authority being responsible for making irregular appointment on alleged purely temporary basis, had subsequently turned round and terminated civil servant's service which was utterly untenable‑‑ Authority did not claim that civil servant lacked qualifications for having itself appointed civil servant on of be allowed to take benefit of its lapses in order to terminate services of civil servant merely because it had itself committed irregularity in violating procedure governing appointment‑‑‑ 1997 PLC 562: ....Constitutional petition‑‑‑Objection as to over age in regard to respondents was never raised or considered by petitioner (authority) at proper time i.e. at the time of appointment of respondents or immediately thereafter‑‑‑Petitioner was late in having raised such objection daring proceedings of Constitutional Petition when respondents had acquired sufficient skill and experience to render valuable service to the State‑‑‑Respondents being in lowest category of employees, it would be injustice militating against provisions of Arts. 2A, 3 & 9 of the Constitution to deprive them of their livelihood on such‑like grounds‑‑‑Petitioners being Government Department should not have taken such position when it was fully cognizant of age of the respondents at the time of their recruitment‑‑‑Objection as to age of respondents would be deemed to have been waived."

6. An anxious consideration of the prose and cons of the contention raise on behalf of the. contestants in the light of the pleadings and the record available on the file lead me to observe that as regard the question of jurisdiction, this Bench of the Commissioner in certain earlier judgments and as well as in a judgment of the Full Bench of this Commission reported in 1999 PLC 75 and a latest recent judgment of the Larger Bench of this Commission, it has been held that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is a special legislation providing its own remedies and procedure for the matters falling within its ambit and for invoking the jurisdiction of this Bench of the Commission against the alleged acts of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer, no bar or restriction has been imposed by the newly amended section 2‑A in the Services Tribunal Act of 1973. As regards the cause of action of the petitioner, admittedly the petitioners are being met with worst discrimination in regard to their employment and conditions of employment to the hands of the respondents just for nothing but only as a measure of unfair labour practice against them. The respondents who themselves appointed the petitioners many years earlier cannot be allowed to take benefit of their own lapses in order to terminate the services of the petitioners as the objection as to over‑age in regard to the petitioners was never raised by the respondents at the proper time i.e. at the time of appointment of the petitioner or immediately thereafter. The petitioners have acquired sufficient skill and experience to render valuable service to the State and being in lowest category of employees and it would be injustice militating against the provisions of Articles 2A, 3, 9 and 25 of the Constitution to deprive them of their livelihood on such‑like grounds and the petitioners deserve for the same treatment which is being given by the respondents to other colleagues of the petitioners as referred above. This clear cut discrimination speaks of unfair labour practice on the part of respondents. Consequently, I accept. the petitions, set aside the impugned orders and direct the respondents to forward the cases of the petitioners to the Director‑General of l Pakistan Post Offices Department for granting relaxation in upper age limit; in the light of the earlier orders of the Director‑General of Pakistan Post Office Department dated 28‑6‑1999 referred above. No order is made as to costs. The file be consigned to record after completion of necessary formalities. H.B.T./352/NIRC Petitions accepted.