1989 PLP 980 (PLC(CS))

(ii) Whether the application was time‑barred.

6. It is not disputed that the respondent is a limited Company and is not a Statutory Body. It is further contended by Ch. Rashid Ahmed that the Controlling Authority of the respondent is the Government of Pakistan and as such it was competent to pass an order reinstating the appellant. It is further submitted that after reinstatement in service by the Government the action of the respondent in not reinstating him would give him a continuous cause of action till he is reinstated in service or his services are terminated afresh after reinstatement as ordered by the Government.

7. It may be relevant to reproduce the order on the basis of which the appellant claims the right:‑‑ 629374 "No. PR/10(CA)/86‑

1. Dr. M. Akram Sheikh, Managing Director, Pakistan Steel, Karachi. Dear Sir, Please refer to Pakistan Steel's letter No. AP(PB) 2(1)/86/17237, dated 29th December, 1986, regarding reinstatement in service of Raja Manzoor Hussain, Ex‑Driver, Pakistan Steel. The competent authority in appreciation of his petition dated nil (copy enclosed) has been pleased to reinstate Raja Manzoor Hussain in service and also to relax ban on recruitment in order to adjust him against an existing vacancy of a Driver in Pakistan Steel. You are, therefore requested to reinstate him in service immediately and the intervening period may be treated as leave without pay. A compliance report in this respect may also be furnished to the Ministry. Yours faithfully, Sd/‑‑ (Ch. ASS MUHAMMAD) Section Offcer.

8. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob has raised two‑fold objections against this letter. It is firstly submitted that the order of reinstatement is not issued by the competent authority as Government is not the competent and secondly 11te copy of this letter was not endorsed to the appellant but it was part' of internal correspondence between Ministry and the respondent and did not confer any right upon the appellant. It is further submitted that the fact that the ministry was not competent is clear from letter itself as it requests the Managing Director of the respondent to reinstate the appellant.

9. It may be pointed out that the grievance application was decided by the learned Labour Court on preliminary objection without recording of any evidence holding that this order did not create any right under the law in the applicant who could enforce such right under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. In fact the whole question hinges around the fact as to who is competent authority and whether the I Ministry concerned was the competent authority to pass the impugned order. This question can be decided only after evidence is recorded and the rules arc produced with regard to competency or otherwise of the Ministry to pass such an order. The decision of the other point raised in the matter depends upon the determination of the question of the authority or competency of the Ministry to order reintatement of the appellant.

10. Under the circumstances the impugned order is set aside and the case is I remanded back to the learned Labour Court No. 4, for deciding the matter afresh I after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. A.E./13‑13/Lb. S Case remanded.