1997 PLP 725 (PLC)

Ch. Shabbir Ahmad for Petitioner. Aziz Ahmad Chughtai for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th January, 1997. Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, had, by a decision dated 27‑11‑1990, accepted the grievance petition of Karamat Ali, filed under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. He was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits. Authorities of the Postal Department filed an appeal, and by a judgment announced on 27‑3‑1991 this Tribunal partly accepted the appeal by reducing the back benefits to 50%. Both sides filed writ petitions in the High Court, and Mr. Justice Muhammad Aqil Mirza, on 12‑10‑1994, dismissed both the petitions, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs. Karamat Ali has submitted this contempt petition against the Authorities of the Department, under section 38(5) (ibid), alleging that they have, in a deliberate manner, displayed disrespect for the judgment dated 27‑3‑1991 of this Tribunal.

2. Karamat Ali lays claim to monthly wages, as also annual increments, for the period 11‑4‑1981 to 31‑12‑1984, and Selection Grade (No.9) from the month of May, 1988, onwards. In so far as, the scale of ~' t Ali or his seniority is concerned, the same, I do not think, was in the litigation between the parties, and Karamat Ali may have to have resource to the Labour Court for enforcement of his entitlement to the same. Judgment of the Labour Court is not available on record and the records of the Labour Court had not been requisitioned for disposal of this petition; but a perusal of this Tribunal's judgment dated 27‑3‑1991 and the High Court's judgment, dated 12‑10‑1994 gives the impression that Karamat Ali had been granted ex‑Pakistan leave for going to Saudi Arabia, initially from 3‑4‑1980 to 1‑7‑1980, and it was then extended for a further period of sixty days or two months. Karamat Ali's application for leave for another period of two years, with effect from 31‑8‑1980, was, however, rejected, and he was charge‑sheeted on 10‑12‑1980. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 11‑4‑1981; and this was done without holding an inquiry, according to the employee, whose departmental appeal was also disallowed on 19‑11‑1985. Afterwards, he filed a grievance petition under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which entailed his reinstatement in service, ordered by the Labour Court on 15‑4‑1989, without making any order as regards the back benefits. By consent, the case was remanded by this Tribunal on 4-3‑1990 to the Labour Court, which Court, on 27‑11‑1990, once again ordered Karamat Ali's reinstatement in service, this time with full back benefits, with effect from 11‑4‑1981, the date of his removal from service.

3. The Postmaster‑General did not make any grievance before the Honourable High Court, as regards Karamat Ali's reinstatement in service, and limited his grievance to the grant of back benefits alone. From Saudi Arabia, Karamat Ali had sent an application for extension of ex‑Pakistan leave, stating that he had lost his travelling documents and would require a period of two years for searching the same. It was obviously an absurd plea, as Karamat Ali was evidently not telling the truth and was interested in only extending his stay abroad. In all probability he was doing some job in Saudi Arabia. What else for had he gone there and why was he interested in staying there for that long? Oral assertion made to the effect that he had lost his documents was not to be believed. Similarly, as already said, the plea that he will take a period of two years to find out the missing documents was equally unacceptable. He said in his aforesaid application that as it had become difficult and rather impossible for him to survive, he had tried to do something in Saudia for passing his days. It has been observed by both the Courts, my learned predecessor, as also the Honourable High Court, that Karamat Ali had not remained absolutely without earnings there, although he had not disclosed his object of going to Saudi Arabia. Usually people go there for doing service or some business, and it cannot be believed that he was wholly jobless or resource less during his stay in Saudia. The Departmental Authorities had no source to become aware of the means of Karamat Ali's income in Saudia, and the burden lay upon him to clearly state and establish as to what for he had gone to Saudia, why was he staying there, and what was he doing there. The Honourable High Court has substantially endorsed the reasoning and the findings recorded by this Tribunal, vide judgment dated 27‑3‑1991, and has described the verdict to be reasonable. Karamat Ali would not have stayed in Saudi Arabia for that long without work. He came back in 1985 and applied for his reinstatement; but in actual practice he was reinstated in 1991. From 1985 to 1991 he might again have been doing something, while in Pakistan; but the same has not been established by the Authorities of the Department, and Karamat Ali's assertion made to the effect that he had been absolutely jobless during that period has not effectively been controverted. From a perusal of the last page of the High Court's judgment dated 12‑10‑1994 it transpires that Karamat Ali had been held entitled to 50% back benefits for the period 1985 to 1991, after his return to Pakistan, and till the date of his joining service. The High Court, in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction, had opted not to disturb this Tribunal's order, which was described as equitable. The Department's Writ Petition (No. 272 of 1993), which was filed nearly two years after the impugned decision, was considered to be suffering from laches and was dismissed. But Karamat Ali's Writ Petition (No. 5697 of 1991) was also dis allowed by the High Court.

4. The Departmental representative and counsel before me have stated at the Bar that they are prepared to concede to the employee the monetary benefits for the aforesaid period 1985 to 1991 (50 % of the same), and that they have also paid to him 50% of the emoluments for the period he spent in Saudi Arabia. Karamat Ali did not perform any duty till end of March, 1991, although his reinstatement from the back date was ordered. For this period also, he would be entitled to claim 50% back benefits. While rejecting his application for extension of ex‑Pakistan leave, submitted towards end of 1980, Karamat Ali had been clearly told to come back and join duty, but he did not do so and deferred his departure to the homeland over several years. This Tribunal has observed, in the course of its judgment dated 27‑3‑1991, that cogent evidence has not been led by the Department to establish that service upon Karamat‑Ali had been effected, as regards rejection of his leave application, as also the direction made by the Department. It is, however, to be noted that it was the duty of the employee, as well, to find out from his own sources as to whether or not his prayer for extension of ex‑Pakistan leave had been granted. He was on leave duly sanctioned till 30‑8‑1980, and was charge‑sheeted on 10‑12‑1980, and his absence from duty afterwards was certainly an actionable incidence. The Department could at least take notice of it. He had not led evidence before the Labour Court, although he was allowed opportunities for the purpose. There was little room for accommodating such a diffident, disobedient and insubordinate official. Still, on the strength of the Labour Court's decision, as also the pronouncement made by this Tribunal, he was able to have his reinstatement and earn 50% back benefits. Beyond that, obviously, he is not entitled to any further accommodation and benefits Finding the Honourable High Court's pronouncement not entirely in his favour, Karamat Ali has sought enforcement and execution of this Tribunal's judgment dated 27‑3‑1991, which decision, however, had merged in the Honourable High Court's I decision dated 12‑10‑1994, proclaimed afterwards. Finding no substance in the contempt petition, I proceed to dismiss it. H.B.T./873/Lb.P Petition dismissed.