2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SIBTE AKHTAR Versus PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION through Managing Director
| Citation | 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, Hamid Ali Mirza and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ |
| Parties | SIBTE AKHTAR Versus PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION through Managing Director |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, Hamid Ali Mirza and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SIBTE AKHTAR Versus PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION through Managing Director). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- K.M. Nadeem, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Qamar Abbas, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th November, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 23-5-2000 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No. 1058-K of 1999).
S. 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Terms and conditions of service
Filing of appeal nine years after retirement
Dispute was with regard to the Group in which the employee was retired
Employee claimed to be retired in Group-VII instead of Group-VI
Representation before the Authorities as well as the appeal before Service Tribunal were dismissed
Employee slept over his said right for nine years and thereafter started agitating for the same-- Supreme Court declined to interfere with the, judgment passed by Service Tribunal
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.
Facts leading to the filing of this petition are that petitioner was an employee of respondent-Corporation. His services were terminated in the year 1981 but thereafter in 1989, on his representation before the Review Board, his termination was set aside. The respondent-Corporation gave him an offer either to join the service or get compensation. The petitioner opted for the compensation which was duly paid to him in the year 1990. The petitioner being satisfied with the compensation, did not agitate the matter any further. However, in 1999 he made a representation before the respondent-Corporation to the effect that he should have been retired in Group-VII instead of Group-VI and also claimed seniority as was given to some of his juniors. The representation made by the petitioner failed. He then approached the Federal Service Tribunal but his appeal was dismissed on the sole ground that it was hopelessly barred by time, therefore, the present petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Regulation 86(2) of P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985 was not applicable to his case, therefore, his petition before the Tribunal was not barred by time. Argued that the learned Tribunal should have decided the matter on merits. The above contentions, on the other hand, were opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent-caveator.
3. We have heard the learned counsel and gone through the order impugned with their assistance. Without giving any finding regarding application of P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, it is observed that the petitioner slept over his so-called right for 9 years and thereafter, woke up and started agitating for the same. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument, that P.I.A.C. Regulations were not applicable, the petitioner should have made the representation within reasonable time and period of 9 years is certainly not a reasonable, time. We, therefore, do not find any, infirmity of law in the order impugned which could prompt us to interfere with the same. Resultantly, this petition fails which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S-97/S Petition dismissed.