MUHAMMAD AKRAM BAITU, J.-- Through this Constitutional Petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner has called in question the validity of impugned judgment dated 2.4.2002 passed by the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore whereby the appeal arising from the impugned judgment dated 3.5.1999 passed by the learned Labour Court No. 9, Multan was dismissed.
2. Briefly narrated the facts of the case giving rise to the instant petition are that respondent No. 1 had been serving as driver in Punjab Road Transport Corporation. Unluckily a case under Section 3 of the Prohibition Order VI of 1979 was registered against him wherein he was sentenced for two years and remained in jail till 16.1.1992. During the period he remained in jail, respondent No. 1, informed the petitioner and applied for leave but instead of the same he was dismissed from service. Subsequently after his release from jail, he preferred a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court, Multan alleging therein that the dismissal order has been passed without fulfilling the legal requirements i.e. Neither any charge-sheet was issued nor any proper enquiry was conducted and the petitioner/respondent No. 1 was also not afforded opportunity of hearing heard. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. Consequently, the grievance petition of the petitioner/respondent No. 1 was allowed and he was reinstated in service with 50% back benefits. Feeling aggrieved the respondent-Corporation went in appeal before the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal which was dismissed on 2.4.2002, hence this Constitutional Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal were not competent to decide the matter because the PRTC was exempted from the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance and Standing Orders in view of the Notification dated 26.9.1997, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned lower Courts are liable to be set aside.
4. On the contrary learned counsel for the respondent opposed the contention raised' by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned orders.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused..
6, It evinces from record that the respondent filed a grievance petition in the year 1992 which was decided by the learned Labour Court, Multan on 3.9.1999. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the Notification No. PS (SL & M) 5489/1997, dated 26.9.1997 PRTC is exempted from the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance and Standing Orders, 1968, therefore, the learned Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter between the parties, yet the fact remains that the aforesaid notification was promulgated prospectively and not retrospectively. It is well-settled law that the amendment in the existing law would be prospective until and unless it was otherwise provided. Learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to substantiate that the aforesaid notification adversely affect the case of the respondent pending prior to the issuance of said Notification, therefore, in my view the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Labour Tribunal were justified to decide the case of the respondent.
7. In view of the above discussion all the contentions raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner do not held good. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the learned lower Courts did not suffer from any illegality and call for no interference by this Court.
8. Resultantly, I find no substance in this petition which is hereby dismissed. .