1998 PLP 348 (PLC)

MUHAMMAD ZAMAN QURESHI (CHAIRMAN).

We propose to dispose of the above appeal through this order which has been filed by Pakistan International Airlines Corporation against Mubarik Ali, assailing the order dated 19-7-1995 recorded by the then Chairman, N.I.R.C., whereby the petition filed by respondent Mubarik Ali was accepted and the appellants were directed to re-employ him in service from the date of order dated 19-7-1995.

2. An application was filed by respondent to the then Chairman, N.I.R.C. stating that he was working as a Baker in P.I.A.C. He was an active member of U.P.I.A.E. Union. At that time during Martial Law, he and his other colleagues were terminated. It was done at the instance of P.I.A.C.E. Union as the applicant had been taking part in the U.P.I.A.E. Union. In 1988 when new Government came in power, he made certain applications for reinstatement but remained unsuccessful although his other colleagues were reinstated. It was prayed that as the Government had reinstated all ex-P.I.A. employees who were the victim of Martial Law, therefore, he should also be reinstated. The case came up before the then Chairman on 31-10-1994. He issued notice to P.I.A.C. for 5-12-1994 and after inviting written reply and hearing the arguments accepted the petition against which the above appeal has been filed.

3. Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that respondent was dismissed for misconduct after regular enquiry was held against him and he was found guilty for lighting a cigarette, as a result of which the whole kitchen got fire due to Sui gas, which caused colossal loss. He did not avail any remedy against that order which became final and binding between the parties. It was on 30-10-1994 that he filed the petition before the Chairman, N.I.R.C. which was highly belated and time-barred and could not be entertained. No unfair labour practice was either spelt out from the contents of the application nor was proved through evidence. The impugned order was, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that in view of insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the appeal stood abated.

5. We have perused the record and have considered the arguments stated above. It is undisputed that the respondent was removed from service on 30-1-1982 as a result of habitual neglect of duty and misconduct after taking proper disciplinary proceedings against him. He did not challenge that order in any competent forum and it became past and closed transaction. Suddenly, he filed, a petition before the then Chairman, N.I.R.C. on 20-10-1994 for reinstatement. The contents of the application do not show that the respondent was removed from service as a result of trade union activities. No unfair labour practice is also established through oral or documentary evidence. Therefore, the N.I.R.C. in the absence of any material showing unfair labour practice has no jurisdiction to entertain such petition as held by the Supreme Court in PLD 1988 SC 53.

6. The application filed by the respondent was also belated by 12 years and the doctrine of laches was fully applicable in such an eventuality. The findings of the Single Bench are, therefore, not maintainable under the law.

7. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal stands abated has no force because no appeal lies before the Federal Service Tribunal against the order of the Single Bench of this Commission. For the reasons stated above, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order recorded by the Single Bench and dismiss the petition with no order as to costs. H.B.T./307/N.I.R.C. Appeal accepted.