Expeditious disposal

Pertinently, the present case had been remanded by the Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission ('Full Bench') to decide the same preferably within two months and to implead contractor (Ask Development) as a party

Orders sheet of the (present) petition showed that Ask Development had been impleaded as party (as Respondents Nos.6 and 7) and several notices had been issued to them to file their written reply but they showed their lack of interest in the matter and deliberately lingered on the matter and later (on 24-01-2024), their right of filing written reply was closed

According to the NIRC (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 2016, "for the expeditious disposal of the business before the Commission, it may direct any examination or cross-examination or re-examination to be cut short or dispensed with"

So on the verbal request of counsels for the parties for the expeditious disposal of the case, the Commission dispensed with the requirement of recording of evidence in the matter

Even, in the remanding order, the Full Bench mentioned that the Trial Court, of it felt necessary, to record evidence of the parties and decide the matter preferably within two months

Thus, , the present matter did not require further evidence as it was a very simple case and everything was clear in it and the counsels for the parties also agreed to decide the case without recording of evidence

National Industrial Relations Commission set-aside the impugned termination from service letter issued against the petitioner, being illegal and without justification; directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of his alleged termination

Grievance petition was allowed.

Courts were always mindful of the need for election process to be completed expeditiously and without hindrance, including the trial of election petitions arising out of the election.

Election petitions must be expeditiously decided and those filed under S.52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 were required to be decided within four months as provided in S.67(1A) of the Act. Muhammad Asim Kurd Alias Gailoo v. Lashkari Khan Raisani 1999 SCMR 689 and Muhammad Usman Achakzai v. Election Tribunal Balochistan PLD 2010 SC 943 rel.