P L D 1994 Supreme Court 484 (PLP)

SALEEM ATHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judges of the High Court whereby the Constitution petition filed by it against the order of respondent No.. 1 was dismissed.

2. Respondent No. 2 was the director, Customer Services of the petitioner. His services were terminated on 11‑1‑1981 with immediate effect as his services were no more required by the corporation. On 20‑5‑1989 the Government of Pakistan by its notification constituted a Review Board for the purpose of revising the cases of employees of industrial and commercial establishments set up, managed or controlled by the Government, who were removed or dismissed from employment under a Martial Law Regulation or as a result of conviction by a Summary Military Court or otherwise purely on political grounds as the case may be. The Review Board consisted of three persons including a representative of the Administrative Ministry responsible for the administration of the establishment to which the employee belongs. The take tin review of cases after inviting applications from the affected persons and make its recommendations after examining available records and affording to the applicant an opportunity of being heard. The affected employees were required to submit a review petition before the Board by 31‑5‑1989. On 31‑5‑1989 respondent No. 2 made an application to the Board praying that termination of his service dated 11‑1‑1981 may be declared as nullity in law and he may be reinstated with effect from the date of termination with all back benefits. After hearing both the parties, the Review Board verbally announced its decision recommending to the Federal Government to give retirement benefits to respondent No.

2. It is an admitted position that decision in writing of the Board was not made available. On 5‑11‑1990 respondent No. 2 submitted an application for settlement of his claim in view of the recommendation made by the Board. As there was no response from the petitioner, in September 1991 respondent No. 2 made a complaint against the petitioner to the Wafaqi Mohtasib, respondent No. 1, praying that the decision of the Board dated 28‑9‑1989 be implemented by the petitioner. The petitioner filed objections, inter alia, challenging the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 and further that the case of respondent No. 2 being a normal one, having been determined on 11‑1‑1981 by the competent authority, the same could not be reviewed by the Board, and that the compensation and back benefits could not be allowed in view of the management policy of the petitioner. After hearing the parties respondent No.l passed an order on 30‑4‑1992, operative part of which reads as follows:‑‑ 'For the view, I have taken in the matter while accepting the complaint of the complainant I hold that the Review Board vide its findings dated 28‑9‑1989 did in fact recall the retirement order of the complainant and made direction that full back benefits shall be paid to' the complainant from the date of retirement including retirement benefits till the day, the order was made by the Review Board. I, therefore, direct Chairman PIAC, Karachi and Ministry of Defence (Aviation Division) that the petitioner may be given all benefits by virtue of the order/finding in his favour from the date of illegal termination till the order is made. The Agency complained against shall also pay an amount of Rs.3,000 as compensation to the complainant for injustice done to him through gross maladministration on its part. I also recommend that an inquiry may, be launched with regard to the non‑availability of file with immediate effect. The results may be conveyed to me within one month from the date of issue of this finding." The petitioner challenged this order by filing Constitution petition in the High Court of Sindh, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.

3. Mr. Khalid Anwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction under Article 9 of the President's Order No. 1 of 1983 to entertain the complaint for investigation by or on behalf of a public servant or a functionary concerning any matter relating to the agency in which he is or has been working in respect of any personal grievance relating to his services therein. It was further contended that the Review Board had no jurisdiction in the matter as no case of termination on purely political grounds had been made out. It was also contended that as the Review Board did not forward a recommendation to the Federal Government, it could not be given effect to by respondent No. 1.

4. On the other hand Mr. IA. Hashmi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that admittedly recommendation had been made orally and the written order was not made available and as no action was taken by any Government or authority, respondent No. 2 was competent to file complaint before respondent No. 1 who had the jurisdiction to entertain it as a case of maladministration had been made out. The learned counsel pointed out that the recommendation was made by the Board, but the relevant files were not produced and are said to have been misplaced or lost. In such circumstances, respondent No. 1 could exercise his jurisdiction under Article 9 of the President's Order No. 1 of 1983. It was further contended that the Review Board had the jurisdiction to entertain the case as respondent No. 2 had made out a case of political victimisation and further that the petitioner having participated before the Review Board of which a representative of the petitioner was a member, without raising objection to the jurisdiction of the Review Board to which the petitioner submitted now it is debarred from challenging the jurisdiction of the Review Board.

5. The contentions raised require interpretation and effect of the notification issued constituting the Review Board and also the provisions of President's Order No. 1 of 1983, which are of general legal importance. We, `A therefore, grant leave to consider inter alia the aforestated contentions. The operation of the impugned judgment is stayed subject to the petitioner revalidating the bank guarantee furnished in the High Court. M.B.A./P‑237/S Leave granted.