2001 PLP 1229 (SCMR)

JAVED IQBAL, J:‑‑‑This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against order, dated 6‑2‑2000 passed by learned Sindh Service Tribunal at Karachi, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected being time‑barred.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as enumerated in the impugned order are as follows:‑‑ "The brief facts are that the appellant was an employee of the Autonomous Body viz. SRTC. Initially his services were terminated in 1967. However the post of Assistant Manager Traffic was advertised and the appellant was appointed against that post on 19‑12‑1974. His services were again terminated 'on 28‑4‑1997 as there was retrenchment in the department and about 155 officers alongwith the appellant were terminated due to retrenchment on the basis of last come first go. In between the appellant was moving applications to different officers including the Chief Minister and again he was reinstated on 22‑5‑1997 by respondent No.3 when the facts were brought to the notice of the respondent No.3 that the appellant's application on which he has been reinstated is time barred, as such again the services of the appellant were terminated by respondent No. 3 on 28‑8‑1997. In‑between the Amendment came in existence in Sindh Service Tribunals Act on 15‑1‑1995 and including SRTC all Autonomous Bodies came within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Appellant preferred a departmental appeal and then he filed Constitution Petition before the Hon'ble High Court. After the dismissal of the Constitution Petition instead of approaching this Tribunal he preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He was not granted leave to appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as such his appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. He therefore, preferred this appeal before this Tribunal on 11‑3‑1998. This appeal was dismissed by this Tribunal on 1‑6‑1998 on the ground that services of the appellant were terminated on 28‑8‑1997 against that he preferred departmental appeal on 26‑9‑1997 which according to him is still pending since he preferred this appeal before this Tribunal on 11‑3‑1998 as such his appeal was dismissed in limine considering the same as hopelessly time‑barred as only 120 days are allowed to file the appeal after filing the departmental appeal against this order, the appellant preferred as appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the appeal filed by the appellant being Civil Appeal No.164‑K of 1998 on 5‑4‑1999 with the observations as under:‑‑ 'In the result this petition is converted into an appeal and the case remanded to the Tribunal for giving a fresh decision on the question of limitation and thereafter consider the merits of the case, if the first question is decided in favour of the petitioner. "' Pursuant to said order the learned Service Tribunal has once again dismissed the appeal vide impugned order being time‑barred.

3. We are persuaded to agree with Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Bhutto (petitioner) that the observations made by this Court and as reproduced hereinabove were not considered at all by the learned Service Tribunal while deciding the question of limitation for the reason that implications and application of section 4 of the Sindh Service‑Tribunals Act have not been discussed in spite of the specific observations of this Court.

4. The learned Additional Advocate‑General has supported the impugned order but when confronted with the said observations with specific reference to section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act he could not explain as to why this aspect of the controversy was ignored by the Learned Service Tribunal. In our considered view the learned Service Tribunal should dilate upon the question of limitation and decide the same after affording proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned in accordance with the observations as reproduced hereinabove pertaining to section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act and its applicability to the case of petitioner.

5. In the light of what has been stated above the petition is converted into appeal, order, dated 6‑3‑2000 is set aside and case is remanded back to learned Service Tribunal for a fresh adjudication on the question of limitation as mentioned hereinabove and thereafter consider the merits of the case as well, in case the question of limitation is decided in favour of petitioner. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./G‑56/S Appeal allowed.