1999 PLP 22 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 24th September, 1997 The respondent No. 2 while posted as Bank Guard, Habib Bank Limited, Circle Office, Bahawalpur, was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced by the Court under Offences in Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 in case F.I.R. No. 7293, dated 25‑11‑1993, under section 468/471/409, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, registered at Police Station Commercial Bank Circle, Multan. Simultaneously, the departmental proceedings were also taken against respondent No.2 by the petitioner in which he was dismissed from service by order, dated 9‑9‑1993. Respondent No.2 filed a grievance petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur. The factum of conviction and sentence was brought to the notice of the learned Presiding Officer of the Punjab Labour Court in writing by the petitioner. During the pendency of this petition before the Punjab Labour Court, respondent No.2 filed another petition under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, along-with a miscellaneous application under Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, with allegation of commission of unfair labour practice. A learned Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission, by the impugned order dated 17‑10‑1996 reinstated the respondent No.2 in service by way of interim relief.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the grievance petition of respondent No.2 had been disposed of by the learned Punjab Labour Court as having become infructuous against which respondent No.2 had filed an appeal under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. It was, therefore, not open for respondent No.2 to switch over to the N.I.R.C. by filing another petition with the allegation of unfair labour practice. It was further submitted that the learned Member, N.I.R.C. had no jurisdiction to grant final relief of reinstatement in service in favour of respondent No.2 by means of an interim order particularly, when respondent No.2 had been dismissed from service and was also convicted and sentenced by competent Court of law on the charge of fraud and embezzlement. It was further argued that the impugned order dated 17‑10‑1996 did not disclose any reason in support thereof. Learned counsel further submitted that at the time of passing of the impugned order there was no Full Bench of the N.I.R.C. available or functioning.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.2 has stated that the impugned order dated 17‑10‑1996 although interim in nature was nevertheless appealable before the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission. Learned counsel relied on the case of Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. and 3 others v. Chairman, N.I.R.C. and 4 others (1984 PLC 1342), decided by the Sindh High Court, in support of his contention.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The impugned order dated 17‑10‑1996 passed by the learned Member of the N.I.R.C. is reproduced for facility of its perusal:‑‑ "Petitioner along-with counsel and counsel for respondent present. Learned counsel for petitioner stated that if respondent is ready to take the petitioner on duty, the petitioner is ready to withdraw the back benefits. Further requested for interim relief. To come up on 15‑12‑1996. Respondent is directed to allow the petitioner to perform his duty till the next date of hearing." (Sd.) (Sajjad Hussain Bhatti), Member. Announced: 17‑10-1996. The impugned order would ' clearly show that the same was passed in a slipshod and perfunctory manner without recording any justifiable reason for the same. The mechanical fashion in which the impugned order was passed without any justifiable grounds cannot be treated to be a judicious exercise of power. Such a practice of summary disposal of matters with perfunctory order has been disapproved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. In the case of Mollah Ejaher Ali v. Government of East Pakistan and others (PLD 1970 SC 173) it was held that the Court's order disposing of a petition must be a speaking order manifesting by itself that Court applied mind to the resolvation of issues involved. An order of the High Court that "application rejected as there is no substance in it" being perfunctory order was not approved. The learned Member of the N.I.R.C. was under a legal obligation to pass a reasoned order. It was further held in the precedent case that where an order of a lower Court contains no reasons, the Appellate Court is deprived of the benefit of the views of the lower Court and is unable to appreciate the process by which the decision has been reached. Moreover, the learned Member, N.I.R.C. ought to have first determined the questions or issues involved in the list before granting the final relief of reinstatement in service in favour of respondent No.2 by way of ad interim order. No exceptional circumstances were shown by the respondent No.2 or by the learned Member, N.I.R.C. for grant of final and complete relief of reinstatement in service. The learned Member, N.I.R.C. failed to take notice that a parallel proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, were pending before another Court/Tribunal of competent jurisdiction at the instance of respondent No.2 wherein no such relief had been granted to him. The effect of the conviction and sentence by the Special Court constituted under the Offences in Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, was also not taken into consideration by the learned Member who acted in oblivion thereof. It is now well‑settled that the final relief of reinstatement should not ordinarily be granted without there being very strong and exceptional reasons through an interim order. See the cases of the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Shri Rameshwar Dayal and another (AIR 1961 SC 689) and Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance, Islamabad v. Abdur Rehman and others (1995 SCMR 6). In my view the impugned order was patently illegal manifesting the defect of jurisdiction. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the filing of appeal before the Full Bench even if available would have been an exercise in futility.

5. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 17‑10‑1996 passed by the learned Member, N.I.R.C. is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. This writ petition is accepted. The parties are left to bear their own costs. It is, however, directed that the Member, National Industrial Relations Commission at present seized with the case shall dispose it of within a period of four months. H.B.T./H‑52/L Petition accepted.