1993 PLP 45 (PLC)

Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui, Dy. A.‑G. of Pakistan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th December, 1989. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question the proceedings of the Review Board constituted by the President of Pakistan, vide Notification No. LR 17(6)/88, dated 20‑5‑1989, issued by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Labour, Manpower and Overseas Pakistan (Labour Division), for the purpose of reviewing the cases of the employees of Industrial and Commercial Establishments set up, managed or controlled by Government, who were removed or dismissed from employment under a Martial Law Regulation or as a result of conviction by a Summary Military Court or otherwise purely on political grounds.

2. About 14,000 applications were received by the Review Board. In order to dispose of these applications expeditiously, the relevant Ministries were requested to notify the organisations under their control to file written statements and represent their cases before the Board on a date of hearing to be notified later directly to them. It is alleged that a similar preparatory letter was sent to Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of Pakistan, which in turn passed on the instructions to PASSCO, petitioner herein, to enable them to prepare their cases for hearing before the Review Board. Thereafter, the cases of the petitioner's ex‑employees were considered by the Review Board and certain recommendations were formulated which are yet to be forwarded for appropriate action.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the Review Board conducted the proceedings against the petitioner ex parte in respect of the ex‑employees of the petitioner, without providing them an opportunity to explain their view point. It is contended that 22 cases by the ex‑employees of the petitioner for review of their dismissal/removal are pending before the Review Board but on 19‑10‑1989 at about 10‑30 a.m., the petitioner received a telephonic message from on behalf of Registrar, National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad, that cases with regard to eight ex‑employees were to be heard on 22‑10‑1989 at Islamabad before the Review Board. Consequently, the petitioner deputed Mr. Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, its Law Officer to represent the petitioner before the Review Board and prayed for adjournment for filing written statement and engaging a legal practitioner for the purpose of defending the cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Review Board had no jurisdiction whatsoever to review the cases of ex- employees of the petitioner who were removed during the Martial Law regime.

4. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that an adequate opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided by the Review Board to represent the view point of the petitioner relating to its jurisdiction as well as on merits, which has since been denied.

5. Mr. Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui, learned Deputy Attorney‑General for Pakistan, submitted that the Review Board has not passed any orders for the reinstatement of the ex‑employees of the petitioner neither it had any jurisdiction to do so. The task of the Review Board is merely to take up review of cases of any employee of an Industrial or Commercial Establishment, managed or controlled by the Government, who was removed or dismissed from employment during Martial Law regime and make its recommendations after examining the available record and affording to the applicants an opportunity of being heard. In the instant case, it is submitted that an opportunity was duly afforded to the applicants, ex‑employees of the Petitioner, and recommendations were formulated which are confidential in nature and were yet to be sent to the petitioner as well as other concerned Ministries for appropriate action, but in anticipation of its formal communication the petitioner approached this Court and, therefore, the writ petition is premature.

6. As regards jurisdiction of the Review Board, the learned Deputy Attorney‑General submitted that this question ought to have been raised, in the first instance, before the Review Board itself. However, without prejudice to the aforesaid plea, the learned Deputy Attorney‑General made a statement at the Bar that in the interest of justice and in order to shorten the litigation the respondents have no objection to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to represent their view point on merits as well as relating to the jurisdiction of the Review Board and that fresh recommendations with regard to the employees of the petitioner shall be formulated and communicated to the Ministry of Food and Agriculture for appropriate action, after the petitioner is heard.

7. In view of the above, I would exercise judicial restraint in giving any finding on the points raised by the learned counsel for the parties in these proceedings. As the Review Board has not yet made its recommendations and is prepared to hear the petitioner and thereafter formulate fresh recommendations, in the light of the submissions which may be made by the petitioner, the writ petition has borne fruit and is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Review Board on 20‑12‑1989 for further proceedings in the light of the above statement made by the learned Deputy Attorney‑General. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./P‑19/L Order accordingly.