2003 PLP 705 (SCMR)

Muhammad Afzal v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation and 2 others 1999 SCMR 92 and Muhammad Yaqub v. Pakistan Petroleum Ltd. and another 2000 SCMR 830 fol. Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants in Civil Appeals Nos 24, 1049 and 510 of 2000). Sardar Muhammad Aslam, D.A.‑G. for Respondents (in Civil Appeals Nos. 24 and 1049 of 2000). Sh. Riazul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent (in Civil Appeal No 510 of 2000). Date of hearing: 7th January, 2003. ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.‑‑‑This judgment will dispose of Civil Appeals Nos.24 of 2000, 1049 of 2000 and 510 of 2000 as common question of law has been involved.

2. Appellants Rehmatullah and Qaiser Khan were working as Village Postman and Mail Runner in tile office of respondent No.4, whereas Muhammad Waris was working as Chowkidar in the office of respondent‑Bank when on 22‑9‑1996 the services of appellants Rehmatullah and Qaiser Khan were terminated on 22‑9‑1996 and that of Muhammad Waris was terminated on 18‑9‑1996 by the respective respondents. They filed grievance petitions before the Labour Court and while the same were pending, section 2‑A was added in Service Tribunals Act, 1973 on 10‑6‑1997 whereby appellants became civil servants. They, however, did not invoke the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal but it was on 24‑10‑1998, the Labour Court dismissed their grievance petitions as being abated by insertion of the above provisions of law. Thereafter, the appellants filed their respective appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as `The Tribunal') on 28‑11‑1998 which were dismissed solely on the ground that the same were filed after one month and four days of the order of the dismissal of the grievance petition by the Labour Court.

3. Leave to appeal was granted in these appeals to consider as to whether the delay in these cases is condonable after insertion of section 2‑A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.

4. We have heard Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellants, Sardar Muhammad Aslam, D.A.‑G. for Post‑Master General, Sh. Riazul Haq, learned ASC for United Bank Ltd. and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants mainly contended that this Court in the similar circumstances has already taken the lenient view in the cases of Muhammad Afzal v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation and 2 others (1999 SCMR 92) and Muhammad Yaqub v. Pakistan Petroleum Ltd. and another (2000 SCMR 830) by remanding the matters to the Tribunal keeping in view of the insertion of section 2‑A in the Act for fresh decision on merits while condoning the delay in filing of appeal before it.

6. We have given anxious consideration to the contentions raised at bar and have gone through the above‑referred case‑law. In the case of Muhammad Yaqub (supra), the ground which weighed with this Court mainly was that the first judgment on the subject‑matter after the insertion of section 2‑A in the Act, reported as Muhammad Afzal (supra) was published in the Edition of (1997 SCMR 92) as, such the Tribunal should have taken lenient view for condoning the delay in filing the appeals on account of prevailing confusion with regard to availability of the remedy to an aggrieved person, who was employed in an organization or corporation, controlled by the Government or any other Government Department. In these matters, the appellants had filed their respective appeals before the Tribunal on 28‑11‑1998 admittedly prior to January, 1999 on which date, the first judgment on the particular point was published.

7. Accordingly, the above appeals are allowed. The order of Tribunal is set aside and the cases are remanded to the Tribunal with the direction to decide the same afresh on merits in accordance with law while determining the question of condonation of delay in the light of the above observation. However, there shall be no order as to costs. S.A.K./R‑70/S Appeals allowed.