Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Respondent: GHULAM RASOOL
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 1639
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Munir A. Sheikh, Tanvir Ahmed Khan
and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and others
Versus
GHULAM RASOOL
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1902‑L of 2001, decided on 25th February, 2002.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 24‑3‑2001 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Camp at Lahore, in Appeal No.676‑L of 1997).
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑--
‑‑‑‑Ss.2‑A & 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Question of fact‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Art.212(3) of the Constitution‑‑ Scope‑‑‑Reinstatement in service‑‑‑Break in service‑‑‑Civil servant had been serving in the Bank since 1974, and was terminated from service on the ground that he was employed on stop a gap arrangement‑‑‑Gap shown in his service appeared to be artificial as the civil servant had remained continuously in the service of the Bank‑‑‑Service Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the civil servant and he was reinstated in service ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Question of break in service was a pure question of fact which could not be gone into by Supreme Court in the present petition as contemplated under Art.212 of the Constitution‑‑‑Appeal lay to Supreme Court only if a substantial question of law of public importance was involved‑‑‑Neither any question of public importance had been raised by the petitioner nor the same was involved‑‑‑Judgment of Service Tribunal was maintained by Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Zafar Iqbal Chaudhary, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Ch. Ghulam Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court with Faizur Rehman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 25th February, 2002.
JUDGMENT
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 24‑3‑2001 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Camp at Lahore ;(hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby Appeal No..676/L of 1997 filed by the respondent was accepted and he was reinstated in service‑with service benefits except the arrears of salary for the intervening period of termination and reinstatement.
The respondent was employed as Chowkidar by the petitioner's bank in the year 1974. He continued serving in the Bank when ultimately his services were terminated treating him as an employee on stop gap arrangement. He assailed the order of termination of his services by filing an appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that by virtue of section 2‑A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, added through an amendment in June, 1997, he was to be treated as a civil servant for the purpose of availing of such remedy but it was contested on the ground that the said amendment was not applicable retrospectively on which ground the said appeal was dismissed through judgment dated 27‑11‑1997.
The appeal filed against the said judgment by the respondent before this Court was accepted and the case remanded to the Tribunal to decide the appeal of the respondent on merits for the said amendment made in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, was retrospective in its operation.
After remand the Tribunal through the impugned judgment dated 24‑3‑2001 after overruling the objection of the petitioners that the appeal of the respondent was barred by time or that the same was otherwise not maintainable ordered the petitioners to treat the respondent as a regular employee of the Bank and reinstated him in service with service benefits, against which leave is sought.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appeal of the before the Tribunal was out of limitation. We have noticed the this aspect of the case has been adequately dealt with by holding that it was a fit case for condonation of delay as disclosed in the application seeking condonation, on which in similar other cases reported as 2000 SCMR 830 and 2000 SCMR 944 it had already been held that these grounds were sufficient for condonation of delay. The respondent's termination from service was found by the Tribunal to be against law, therefore, he was ordered to be reinstated in service.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in other cases in which the respondents had been ordered to be reinstated were different on facts for in the case in hand the gap is of nine months whereas according to the policy decision, those employees whose gap was between 10‑15 days were to be regularized. We have observed that since 1974 the respondent was serving in the Bank and the gap shown in his service appears to be artificial for the case of the respondent throughout has beet, that he remained continuously in service of the petitioners Bank and this being a pure question of fact cannot be gone into in this petition by this Court being not put to him as contemplated under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. An appeal lies to this Court only if a substantial questions of law of public importance is involved which has neither been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner nor the same is involved in it.
It has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent in pursuance of the judgment of the Tribunal reported to bank for duty on 26‑3‑2001 but the Bank in spite of there being no stay order granted by this Court did not allow him to join duty. The petitioners are directed to allow the respondent .to join his duty in the Bank and to pay him salary from 25‑3‑2001 onward within a period of one week.
For the foregoing reasons, this petition being without any merit is dismissed and leave refused.
Q.M.H./M.A.K./N‑65/S Petition dismissed.