2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

JAWAD HASSAN, J.

Through this Appeal, filed under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, the Appellant has called in question the legality of impugned order dated 25.10.2012 rendered in W.P. No.21814/2011 by the learned Single Judge (the "Impugned Order"), whereby the Constitutional petition of the Respondent was allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the impugned order is against law and facts as the same has been passed by ignoring the facts and circumstances on record; that the petition was bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad as well as Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal; that the writ petition was hit by the doctrine of laches; that the learned Single Judge was not justified to allow the writ petition as the relief sought for in the writ potion was not given in the judgment dated 23.06.2006 of the Federal Service Tribunal: that the judgment cited by the Appellant i.e. Mobeen ul Salam case has not been evaluated in its true prospective; that the impugned order is in conflict with the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Learned counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on the case titled Iqbal Hussain v. General Manager Southern Telecom Region-II and others (2017 SCMR 353) and P.T.C.L. and others v. Masood Ahmed Bhatti and others (2016 SCMR 1362).

3. On the other hand learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the writ petition was rightly allowed by the learned Single Judge and there is no illegality in the impugned order; that the Appellant was bound to implement the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal as the same had attained finality. Learned counsel for the Respondent has placed reliance on the case titled Muhammad Idrees v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 681), Mehtab Ahmed v. Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Karachi and 2 others (2010 PLC (C.S.) 876), Masood Ahmed Bhatti and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/o Information Technology and Telecommunication and others (2012 SCMR 152), Aziz ur Rehman Chaudhry v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another (2009 PLC (C.S.) 668).

4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5. From the perusal of record it reveals that the Respondent in the writ petition had sought a direction to the Appellant to implement the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 23.06.2006 and his reinstatement back into service. The main contention of the Respondent was that he was ordered to be reinstated into service by the Federal Service Tribunal vide judgment dated 23.06.2006 but the said judgment was never assailed by the Appellant, hence had attained finality and therefore, the Appellant is bound to reinstate the Respondent. On the other hand the contention of the Appellant is that the Respondent approached the Labour Court for implementation of the judgment dated 23.06.2006 whereas it had no jurisdiction to implement the same and the order of the Punjab Labour Court dated 12.01.2010 was set aside by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2011; that although the Respondent was reinstated into service but in view of order dated 30.09.2011 the reinstatement order of the Respondent was cancelled/withdrawn on 01.10.2011.

6. Admittedly, the Respondent was ordered to be reinstated into service vide the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 23.06.2006 which had not been assailed by the Appellant and had attained finality. It is also admitted position by the Appellant that the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal was implemented under the orders of the Labour Court and when the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to implement the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, the Respondent's reinstatement order was again cancelled. Meaning thereby; that the order of the Respondent was cancelled because the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to implement the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. But the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal was still in field. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has relied upon the judgment of Muhammad Idrees case supra and held that the Appellant was under an obligation to implement the Federal Service Tribunal judgment which was not done and consequently obligation cast on the Appellant by the Federal Service Tribunal judgment survives. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below and is as follows: "We will like to reiterate here that whatever was said by this Court in the judgment in Mubeen us Salam supra applied only to the proceedings in relation to the cases which were pending before this Court (either at Appeal stage or at leave granting stage) and, therefore, the cases in which judgments of the learned Federal Service Tribunal were never assailed before this Court have attained finality. 14(b). The judgments of the learned Federal Service Tribunal rendered on the basis of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 which were never challenged before this Court have attained finality and shall be implemented by the concerned organizations without dragging the employees into further litigation."

7. In this view of the situation, we feel no hesitation to hold that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition. We see no illegality or perversity in the impugned order which has been passed in line with the dictates of law and does not warrant any interference by this Division Bench. The learned counsel for the Appellant has failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the Appellant are distinguishable to the case in hand as each and every case has its own facts and circumstances, therefore, cannot be relied upon.

8. Resultantly, the instant Appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ZC/P-3/L Appeal dismissed.