2002 PLP 80 (PLC)

ZAHID KURBAN ALVI, J.‑‑‑The petitioner has assailed the order dated 5‑4‑1999 passed by Member, N.I.R.C. whereby on application under section 22‑A(8)(g) read with section 15 of the I.R.O. filed by respondent No.2 passed the following order; "Meanwhile the respondents and persons connected them are restrained from taking any adverse action against the applicant or cause him harm in respect of his employment in any manner by way of unfair labour practices till the next date. " Briefly the facts of this case are that the petitioner is a public utility organization in which the Federal Government has 70.43 controlling shares and management. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 is employed as Senior Compounder, Medical Centre at Hyderabad. In connection with commission of certain acts of misconduct the respondent No.2 was issued with a show‑cause notice on 1‑12‑1998. Subsequently he was transferred from Medical Centre, Hyderabad to Medical Department at Karachi which transfer order he refused to accept. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 was issued a relieving order which too he refused to accept. In connection with wilful insubordination and disobedience to comply with transfer order the respondent No.2 was issued a show‑cause notice on 12‑3‑1999 but he failed to report to his place of post at Karachi and made allegations against the Deputy Chief Lady Medical Officer of the petitioner. Thereafter, an inquiry was ordered to be held and he was issued letter to this effect also. Instead of participating in the inquiry the respondent No.2 filed a Petition No.4A(87) of 1999‑K under section 22‑A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969 who passed the impugned order. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Attorney‑General at length The only contention urged by the counsel for petitioner is that the order passed by respondent No. 1 is without any lawful authority as the respondent No.2 is a workman and after insertion of section 2‑A of Service Tribunal Act. 1973 the remedy if any lies before Service Tribunal and not before the N.I.R.C. In support of his above contention he has placed reliance on the case of Syed Aftab Ahmed and others v. K.E.S.C. and others (1999 SCMR 197) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that section 2‑A was retrospective in its operation being a law relating to procedure as such all the proceedings pending before any forum other than the Federal Service Tribunal in respect of departmental order made before insertion of the said section could no longer continue and the only remedy was to approach the Service Tribunal. The same view was also allowed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gulzeb Hussan v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. (2000 SCMR 959). The counsel for petitioner leas also placed reliance on several other case‑laws. Keeping in mind the above settled law we would allow this petition and set aside the impugned order dated 5‑4‑1999 passed by respondent No.

1. Foregoing are the detailed reasons for our short order passed on 4‑5‑2001. H.B.T./S‑172/K Petition allowed.