1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Registrar. 1981

1. Punctuality Un‑punctual.

2. Pen Picture. Since the work of the Registrar of the Labour Appellate Tribunal is substantially different from that of the Executive officers of the Labour Department, this Officer has been feeling frustrated in his present assignment and hence has not been taking that amount of interest which is expected and required. He should take more interest in his work. 1982 Assessment of Performance. The officer requires guidance in disposal of complicated case. 1984 Pen Picture. should take interest in his works, Should feel dutiful and responsible. Should be co‑operative and actful.

2. Adverse entries for the period i.e. 20‑5‑1979 to 31‑12‑1982 pertain to the time, when Mr. Justice Rtd. Z.A. Channa was the Chairman of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and other period relate, to the time i.e. 1‑1‑1984 to 3‑10‑1984 when Mr. Justice (Rtd.) Kourejo was heading the Labour Appellate Tribunal as its Chairman. The appellant represented against the communication of adverse remarks to the Secretary Government of Sind, Labour and Co‑operation Department on 30‑6‑1986, which was rejected in the month of July 1986, whereupon the Appellant filed an appeal to the Chief Secretary to Government of Sind on 21‑8‑1986 which has not been replied so far. Hence the Appellant has preferred an appeal under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunal Act, 1973 with a prayer to expunge the adverse remarks communicated to him on 1‑6‑1986.

3. We have heard the arguments advanced by the Appellant in person and the counsel for the Official Respondents. The appellant has mainly contended that he was never communicated any adverse remarks since 1973 to 1986 and has unblemished record of service. he maintains, that the adverse remarks had been written in violation of instruction about confidential report, and that since the appellant was never intimated /informed about adverse remarks from 1978 to 1984 earlier and there being not documentary evidence that A.C.Rs. are not written for the year 1978, 1980 and 1981 till end by 26‑9‑1984. He states that adverse. remarks in his A . C. Rs. were written after September 1984, which carry no legal sanctity. He states that adverse remarks have been got recorded after relinquishment of the charge of Chairmanship of Mr. Justice (Rtd.) Z.A. Channa and Mr. Justice (Rtd.) C.M. Korejo. He is also of the view that the remarks for the year 1982" under assessment of a performance" do. not constitute "adverse remarks" and as such incorporating such remarks in A.C.Rs. and treating it as adverse is misconceived and uncalled for. Similarly remarks for the year 1984 under "Pen picture" are also not adverse but of advisory in nature. However, he has not raised any allegation against the reporting officers. The learned counsel for the Government took a plea that the appeal was time‑barred, however, we have scrutinized the record and are of the opinion that the Appellant has filed the appeal to the Chief Secretary on 21‑8‑1986 and after waiting for the requisite period i.e. 120 days, has filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 17‑12‑1986 as such it is not belated. The learned counsel for the Government has cited an authority of the Supreme Court in the case Government of Punjab and another v. Ehsanul Haq Sethi P L D 1986 S C 684 wherein their Lordships, have taken the view that: "The times schedule for initiating A. C.R. in first week of January prescribed by Institution No.2 Object of prescription of time schedule highlighten‑Rigid compliance of tine schedule in every case may not be necessary for reasons stated and also for reason that Instruction No.2 is directory in nature. ......Advisory remarks in A.C.R true meaning and purpose of advisory remarks ....They carry no stigma but are conveyed as a matter of caution for civil servant to correct himself. .Order by Service Tribunal expunging these remarks without applying mind to true meaning of advisory remarks .... Setting aside as being erroneous."

4. The official respondents have taken a plea in their averments in written Statement that it was S.C.(Labour‑I) who had requested the appellant to get his A.C.Rs. written for the year 1978, 1980 and 1981 by the reporting officer but this letter was never put to the concerned Chairman for writing the A.C.Rs. for the years 1978, 1980 and 1981. As a matter of fact on receipt of the communication from the Government on 11‑7‑1985, the then learned Chairman Mr. Justice (Rtd.) Z.A. Channa was requested to write the A.C.Rs. of the Appellant for the period during which the Appellant served under him. Mr. Justice (Rtd.) Z. A. Channa, on 16th July, 1985 intimated that as far as he re‑collected, he had been regularly writing the confidential reports of all officers of Sind Labour Judiciary including that of the Appellant. Since copies of the reports for the year 1980 and 1981 were not available, he was pleased to record the Confidential Report for the said two years.

5. Further, the respondents maintain that it is a matter of record that Mr. Justice Rtd. G. M. Kourejo was not satisfied with the performance of the Appellant and on 28‑1‑1984, he was pleased to order that the appellant should not pass any Administrative orders in respect of the members of staff of the establishment of the Tribunal and Labour Courts and the Chairman Justice Rtd. Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Kourejo, on 30‑9‑1984, forwarded the report of the officer to the Secretary Government of Sind Labour and Co‑operation Department (vide No. SLAT/(1)/84‑2103, dated 30‑9‑1984). The Chairman was pleased to call for severe action against the appellant. Having disposed of this issue, we would like to discuss the remarks communicated to the Appellant. The remarks for the period 1979 are adverse in nature but for the years 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1984 except for the observation of unpunctuality, the rest of the remarks are of advisory nature. In view of the facts disclosed by the Respondents, the plea of the Appellant that the remarks have been recorded by the Chairman after relinquishment of their charges stands fully exposed and does not merit any consideration. Further, in view of the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan the Appellant has no case for expunction of remarks in his A.C.Rs. given to him by the reporting officers, hence the appeal fails, As such the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs by short order dated 9‑7‑1987. A.A./137/Sr.S Appeal dismissed C