Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ZAHID HUSSAIN VS Respondent: UNITED BANK LIMITED
2000 P L C (C
2000 P L C (C.S.) 927
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, C.J. Mamoon Kazi, Wajihuddin Ahmed and Kamal Mansur Alam, JJ
Syed ZAHID HUSSAIN and another
Versus
UNITED BANK LIMITED and others
Civil Appeals Nos. 869 and 870 of 1999, decided on 20th December, 1999.
(Os0b1PService Tribunal in Appeals Nos. 204(P) and 205(P) of 1998)
Service Tribunals AM (LXX of 1973)‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 2‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Delay in filing appeal before Service Tribunal‑‑‑Application for condonation of delay not decided by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Petitions of the employees under S.25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 were dismissed by Labour Court after insertion of S.2‑A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973‑‑‑Appeals before Service Tribunal were filed with delay‑‑‑Application for condonation of delay was not considered by Service Tribunal while dismissing, said appeals‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Order of Service Tribunal was set aside by Supreme Court and cases were remanded for decision on the applications for condonation of delay.
Syed Aftab Ahmad v. K.E.S.C. 1999 SCMR 197 and Muhammad Afzal v. K.E.S.C. 1999 SCMR 92 ref.
Khalid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.
Rai M. Nawaz Kharal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 20th December, 1999.
ORDER
The services of the appellants in abovementioned appeals were terminated on 2‑10‑1996. They approached the Labour Court under section 25‑A of I.R.O. on 30‑11‑1996. It is not disputed that on 10th June, 1997 when section 2‑A was inserted in Service Tribunal Act, 1973 their cases were pending before the Labour Court. According to appellants the Labour Court dismissed the petitions' on 8‑5‑1998 with‑ the direction to the appellants to approach the Service Tribunal. Learned counsel for 'the respondents contended that the appellants after dismissal of their cases by Labour Court instead of approaching the Federal Service Tribunal, filed review petitions before he Labour Court which was also dismissed and as such they ‑could not claim condonation of delay having resorted to a misconceived remedy.
Be that as it may, there is no denial of the fact that prior to the decision of this Court in cases of Saeed Aftab Ahmad v. K. E. S. C. and Muhammad Afzal v. K.E.S.C. reported in 1999 SCMR 197 and 1999 SCMR 92 respectively the view expressed by the Tribunal was that section 2‑A of the Service Tribunals Act being prospective in operation, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in cases where termination of service of an employee had taken place prior to 10th June, 1997. This view was set aside by this Court in the abovementioned two cases and it was held that provisions of section 2‑A are retrospective in its operation and applied to all cases where proceedings were pending before any Court on the date of insertion of section 2‑A. The appellant had filed applications for condonation of delay in both the cases before the Service Tribunal which it appears were not considered.
We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the impugned orders and remand the cases to the Federal Service Tribunal for decision on the applications for condonation and the cases in the light of the above observations in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Q.M.H./M.A.K./Z‑5/S Cases remanded.