2001 SCMR 1368 (PLP)

RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.‑‑‑Facts in brief leading to the filing of this petition are that respondent No. 1, Muhammad Yaqoob, was an employee of Pakistan Petroleum Limited (P.P.L.). During his service, the management found that he was guilty of insubordination, therefore, an enquiry was ordered and Enquiry Officer was, accordingly, appointed. With consent of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer evolved the procedure to be adopted during the proceedings. The petitioner associated with the enquiry proceedings and cross‑examined the witnesses as well, but thereafter on 22‑10‑1991 he started creating difficulties whereupon the Enquiry Officer asked him to cross‑examine some witnesses but he refused to do so. An order was, therefore, passed by the Enquiry Officer that in such circumstances he has no choice but to proceed ex parte. The respondent refused to sign this order as well therefore, enquiry proceedings were concluded. The respondent was found guilty of misconduct and consequently removed from service on 21‑11‑1991.

2. Feeling aggrieved with the order of his dismissal, the respondent challenged its legality through an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal vide its judgment dated 1‑7‑2000, accepted the appeal and reinstated the respondent in service with back benefits. Through the present petition Pakistan Petroleum Limited, has assailed the above order of the learned Federal Service Tribunal.

3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Pakistan Petroleum Limited is not a statutory body, therefore, relationship of the petitioner with the respondent was of master and servant and in such circumstances, learned Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to take cognisance of the dispute. It was, further contended that even if it is assumed that by virtue of amendment through section 2‑A in the Service Tribunals Act, jurisdiction was given to the learned Tribunal, yet it could not deal with the matter because no corresponding amendment was made in the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973. Reliance was placed on the case of Divisional Engineer Phones v. Muhammad Shahid 1999 SCMR 1526. It was further pointed out that the learned Tribunal had allowed the appeal on the ground that 2nd show‑cause notice was not served on the respondent, therefore; entire proceedings were bad in law. It was contended that neither 2nd show cause notice was necessary nor there was any requirement of law to hold an enquiry in this behalf. These contentions were vehemently controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent‑caveator.

4. After having argued the case at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would be satisfied if the impugned order is set aside and case remanded to the learned Tribunal to give finding on the points raised by him, provided some time‑frame is given to the learned Tribunal to conclude the case. Learned counsel for the respondent‑caveator has no objection.

5. In view of the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner and the consent given by the learned counsel for the respondent‑caveator, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the judgment impugned and remand the case to the Tribunal with the direction to give findings on the points discussed above as well as the points raised before it and also to the fact whether the allegations levelled against the respondent amounted to misconduct or not? The learned Tribunal is also directed to decide the case i within four months and give its findings as to the applicability and scope of the application of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Q.M.H./M.A.K./P‑26/S Appeal allowed.