2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JAVED IQBAL, J.

This, petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-10-2000 passed by learned Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and termination order dated 11-11-1993 has been kept intact.

2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk by means of order dated 9-9-1986 and his case for regular appointment was sent vide letter dated 1-10-1998 but before the question of regularization of petitioner could be decided his services were terminated vide order dated 11-11-1993. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal on 15-11-1993 which could not be decided and ultimately the petitioner approached the learned Federal Service Tribunal by means of Appeal bearing No.668(1) of 1998 which has been dismissed vide judgment impugned.

3. Mr. Ras Tariq Chaudhry, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of petitioner and mainly contended that the learned Federal Service Tribunal has erred while holding that the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner was time-barred because no limitation runs Against void order which aspect of the matter has been ignored resulting in grave prejudice against the petitioner. It is urged with vehemence that the services of the petitioner have been. terminated on account of mala fide intention and with ulterior motives and thus the controversy should have been dilated upon and decided on merits but the petitioner has been knocked out on technical grounds in violation of the precedence law and principles of natural justice.

4. Mr. Faizur Rehman, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared for caveators and supported the judgment for the reasons enumerated therein with the submission that the judgment impugned being well-based hardly warrants any interference as all the points agitated before the learned Federal Service Tribunal were dilated upon and decided in a comprehensive manner.

5. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the parties in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have also perused the judgment impugned. After having gone through the entire record we are of the view that the appeal filed before the, learned Federal Service Tribunal was hopelessly barred by time. There is no denying the fact that the termination order was passed on 11-11-1993 but no immediate steps were taken by the petitioner to get his grievances redressed. He woke from the slumber on 20-7-1995 after two long years and approached the. National Industrial Relations Commission but his grievance petition was dismissed on 9-9-1997 with the categoric observation to approach the learned Federal Service Tribunal being appropriate forum for the redressal of his grievances. No heed whatsoever was paid and instead of approaching the learned Federal Service Tribunal the petitioner once again tried his luck. A before the Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission but his appeal was rejected on 15-5-1998. It is worth-mentioning here at this juncture that even there after the petitioner could not approach the Service Tribunal within prescribed limit of time. The assertion of petitioner that departmental appeal was filed has been rebutted in strong terms by the respondents. The petitioner could not convince the learned Federal Service Tribunal and this Court that a proper departmental appeal was filed in time. In these circumstances the appeal filed before the Federal Service Tribunal was not competent in view of the provisions as contained in section 4(1)(a) of the Service Tribunals, Act, 1973.

6. We have also adverted to the question as to whether the delay could have been condoned in view of the fact that petitioner had approached N.I.R.C. at first instance and subsequently preferred appeal before learned Federal Service Tribunal. It is well-settled by now that "where a person had sought remedy before wrong forum, he was not entitled to condonation of delay unless he proved that he had sought I' remedy before wrong forum in good faith". On the touchstone of the criterion-as mentioned above the case of petitioner has been examined who failed miserably to explain delay reasonably and show that National Industrial Relations Commission was approached in a good faith. As mentioned hereinabove it was made clear to the petitioner by the learned Single' Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission that the controversy falls within the jurisdictional domain of the Service Tribunal but no attention whatsoever was paid to it. It is to be noted that law would support vigilant and not indolent and limitation if allowed to commence could not be stopped. It hardly needs any elucidation that sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay being question of fact is within the exclusive jurisdiction of learned Federal Service Tribunal and once the discretion. concerning condonation of delay was exercised judiciously by the Service Tribunal it cannot be disturbed by this Court without any justification which is lackay in this case. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in. Syed Ali Hasan Rjzvi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1986 SCMR 1086), Muhammad Azhar Khan v Service Tribunal, Islamabad (1976 SCMR 262), Water and Power Development Authority v. Abdur Rashid Dar (1990 SCMR 1513) and Sher Bahadar v. Govt. N.-W.F.P.(1990 SCMR 1519). The conclusion arrived at by the learned Federal Service Tribunal being strictly in consonance of law and being well-based does not warrant any interference.. The petition being merit less is dismissed' and leave refused. S.A.K./N-179/S Leave refused.