1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ALEEM JAFFAR Versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WAPDA
| Citation | 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Ch. Hasan Nawaz and Eli. Abdul Jalil, Members |
| Parties | ALEEM JAFFAR Versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WAPDA |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Ch. Hasan Nawaz and Eli. Abdul Jalil, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ALEEM JAFFAR Versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WAPDA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Imtiaz Mahmood and Mushtaq Masood for Appellant.
- Abdur Rashid Malik for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978‑‑ ‑‑‑Rr. 4 & 5‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4‑‑Appellant's dismissal from service on basis of his conviction by criminal Court‑‑Such conviction set aside by High Court‑‑Effect‑‑High Court's judgment setting aside appellant's conviction took away the very basis of the order of his dismissal‑‑Appellant's dismissal from service was thus set aside on acceptance of his appeal. (b) West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 ‑‑‑Rr. 4 & 5‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4‑‑Limitation Act (1X of 1908), S. 5‑‑Time‑barred appeal‑‑Condonation of delay in filing appeal, when to be granted‑‑Where appellant had been prosecuting his case before wrong forum in good faith, under the impression that such forum has jurisdiction to redress his grievance, he has a good case for condonation of delay‑‑Question of limitation, however, would be wholly irrelevant where basis of impugned order of dismissal viz. conviction, was set aside by High Court‑‑Appellant would be entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
Judgment & Decree
CH. HASAN NAWAZ (MEMBER).‑‑While being in the Respondent's employment as Line Superintendent‑I1, the appellant was dismissed from service on 22nd October, 1981, without going into the formalities of Rule 5 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, on the basis of his conviction for an offence under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2), PCA, 1947 and consequential sentence of three months R.I. with a fine of Rs.500 (Annex. A).
2. He served the respondent with a grievance notice under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969) on 26th October, 1981 (Annex. B). After having failed to receive any response, on 11th November, 1981, he tiled a petition under the same section before the Labour Court (Annex. E) which was accepted on 1st August, 1982 (Annex. F). It was held by the Court that his dismissal from service was illegal and that he was entitled to reinstatement with back benefits. The respondent's appeal against the Labour Court order was dismissed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in limine.
3. The respondent went to the High Court with a writ petition, where it was held on 21st April, 1984, that all WAPDA employees were civil servants and that the order passed by the Labour Court in the matter was without jurisdiction.
4. This led the appellant to the Service Tribunal with the present appeal under section 4 of tile Service Tribunals Act, 1973 with the prayer that the order of his dismissal be declared it, illegal and without lawful authority. It was further prayed that he may be reinstated with all consequential benefits.
5. During the pendency of this appeal, the order of appellant's conviction and sentence was set aside by the High Court on his appeal against the judgment of the Special Judge on 29th March, 1986. It was held that tile prosecution had failed to establish that the appellant had either demanded or accepted any illegal gratification.
6. As it appears from the record, the basis of the impugned order of dismissal was the appellant's conviction by the Special Judge to a case under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2), PCA, 1947. The High Court's finding is that the prosecution had failed to establish their case against the appellant and that the material on the record was not sufficient to sustain an order of conviction. Since tile conviction has been set aside by the High Court, the very basis of the impugned order of dismissal has been taken away. The result of the High Court's judgment is that the appellant was never convicted of the commission of any offence and there was no basis for his dismissal from service.
7. Since the impugned order of dismissal has been rendered as baseless on account of the High Court judgment, it is a good case for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, specially when the appellant has been prosecuting his case before the Labour Courts in good faith under the impression that they do have the jurisdiction to redress his grievance. As a matter of fact, the question of limitation has become wholly irrelevant because of tire finding of innocence by the High Court. What we arc led to is the obvious conclusion that tile appellant should not have been dismissed from service and that the Department was legally bound to re‑instate him after tile judgment of acquittal.
8. For these reasons, the impugned order is set aside in acceptance of tile appeal. The respondent shall reinstate the appellant with all consequential benefits.
9. Under tile circumstances the costs shall not, however, follow the event. A.A./453/Sr. F d Appeal accepted.