2001 PLP 462 (PLC)

Ghulam Abbas and 23 others v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation and 2 others 1998 SCMR 483; ICI Pakistan Limited, Lahore v. Punjab Labour Court No.3, Ferozewala, Sheikhupura and another 1999 PLC 13. and United Bank Limited through President, U.B.L. Head Office Chundrigar Road, Karachi v. Shamim Ahmad Khan and 42 others PLD 1999 SC 990 = 1999 PLC (C.S.) 1032 ref. Ahmad Mansoor Chishti for Petitioner. Basit Babar Chughtai for Respondents Nos.2 to

4. Through this Constitution petition, the petitioner has directly challenged the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur dated 19‑6‑1998 whereby the proceedings pending with the Labour Court on the grievance petition filed by the petitioner has been declared to have been abated under the law.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was an employee of Allied Bank of Pakistan in Grade III. He was dismissed from service on 5‑11‑1982. The petitioner filed a grievance petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur. The petitioner's grievance petition after full contest was allowed and the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 17‑11‑1984 passed by the Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur. The respondent/Bank challenged the order of the Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal accepted the appeal, , set aside the order of reinstatement of the petitioner and remanded the case to the Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur vide order dated 24‑2‑1985. During the pendency of the grievance petition of the petitioner, after remand, before the Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur due to amendment in law, the grievance petition of the petitioner was held to be not maintainable before the learned Labour Court. Thus, it was returned to the petitioner vide order dated 31‑3‑1986. Thereafter, the law was amended. Thus, the petitioner filed an application for restoration of his grievance petition before the Labour Court. The grievance petition of the petitioner was restored and remained pending with the Labour Court till 11‑1‑1996 when it was dismissed for non- prosecution. The application of the petitioner‑for its restoration was pending, when on 19‑6‑1998 on the basis of the amendment of law i.e. by the inception of section 2‑A in the Service Tribunal Act, respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dated 19‑6‑1998; hence, this Constitution petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the case of the petitioner was pending with the Labour Court on 19‑6‑1998 when section 2‑A of the Service Tribunal Act was incorporated, and the amendment is not retrospective in operation; hence, it is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order is void and without lawful authority; further argued that in this respect Honourable Supreme Court has already granted leave to appeal in a case reported in Ghulam Abbas and 23 others v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation and 2 others (1998 SCMR 483).

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of responde4ts Nos.2 to 4 has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this Constitution petition on the ground that the petitioner has filed this Constitution petition against the order of Punjab Labour. Court directly, without availing the remedy of appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal provided by section 38 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969; hence this petition is premature. In this respect he has placed reliance on LC.I. Pakistan Limited, Lahore v. Punjab Labour Court No.3, Ferozewala, Sheikhupra and another (1999 PLC 13). Further argued that the petitioner was employee of the Bank and his remedy is before the Service Tribunal, hence, the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court. In this respect reliance has been placed on United Bank Limited through its President, U.B.L. Head Office Chundrigar Road, Karachi v. Shamim Ahmad Khan and 42 others (PLD 1999 SC 990 = 1999 PLC (C:S.) 1032).

5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments cited by the parties. The case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not relevant to the facts of the case in hand.

6. The petitioner has an alternate remedy of appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal under section 38 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969; hence this petition is premature and thus, is not maintainable in this Court which is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail alternate remedy available to him under the law. H.B.T./N‑78/L Petition dismissed.