' On introduction of Voluntary Retirement Separation Scheme in the year 2000 by State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, respondent No,1 namely Muhammad Rafique who was then serving as Office Assistant, made application on 16-11-2000, to avail the said scheme. His application was still pending when a charge sheet was issued to him on 22-11-2000 containing certain allegations, (which need not be broached here, in view of the pendency of enquiry thereabout). Thereafter on 27-11-2000, his application dated 16-11-2000 regarding option to retire was declined. This prompted him to file a grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court No,5, Sargodha, who returned his petition vide order dated 26-11-2000, in view of the provisions of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunal, Act, 1973. That order was assailed by him before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, where he succeeded and vide order dated 14-5-2002, the learned Chairman Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal proceeded to remand the matter to the Punjab Labour Court No,5, Sargodha for decision on merits. This order has been challenged through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 that respondent No,1 being employee of a Corporation run and controlled by Federal Government, section 2-A of Services Tribunal Act, 1973, was applicable and remedy if any for him was before the Federal Service Tribunal and not before the Labour Court. It is contended by the learned counsel that indeed the matter was still at the inquiry stage when he approached the Labour Court which had got no jurisdiction whatsoever in the matter and that the learned Tribunal acted wholly without jurisdiction in interfering with such an order of the Labour Court and remanding the matter to a Court which had got no jurisdiction under the law. According to him, petition in such circumstances even against a remand order is competent.
2. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 on the other hand submits that when the application for exercising option for retirement was submitted by respondent No,1, no proceedings were pending against him, the said application ought to have been accepted by the Corporation and that the charge-sheet issued on 22-11-2000 could not be made basis for rejecting his application.
According to him indeed no reason whatsoever has been given in order dated 27-11-2000. It is contended that Service Tribunal in the circumstances had no jurisdiction and the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal has rightly exercised the jurisdiction in interfering with the order passed by the Punjab Labour Court. It is further contended that the matter of promotion fell outside the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, therefore, it was only Labour Court which could exercise jurisdiction in the matter and not the Service Tribunal. Reference has been made to Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 that the Tribunal can exercise jurisdiction in such matters to which its jurisdiction extends.
3. Admittedly the application filed by respondent No,1 for retirement in terms of the scheme had not yet been accepted when he was issued a charge-sheet dated 22-11-2000. Statedly, the matter was still pending departmentally when respondent No,1 approached the Labour Court, who took the view the he had no jurisdiction and returned the petition for presentation before the proper forums in view of section 2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973. While reversing that order the learned Tribunal, however, proceded on the premises as if the matter fell under section 4(1)(b) of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and was out of purview of the jurisdiction of A the' Service Tribunal and thus remanded the matter to the Punjab Labour Court taking the view that the said Court had jurisdiction in the matter.
The view taken by the learned Tribunal is not consistent with the factual and legal position obtaining in the matter inasmuch as that the proceedings initiated against respondent No,1, departmentally, had yet to reach its logical end on completion of inquiry. Whether the application filed by respondent No,1 for retirement could or could not be declined, had in the circumstances direct nexus with and dependent upon the fate of the inquiry against him. If at all respondent No,1 was of the view that option for retirement was illegally refused by the petitioner his remedy lay elsewhere but certainly not before the Labour Court. Exclusion and bar of jurisdiction of all Courts and, authorities by operation of section 2-A of Service Tribunal Act, 1973, was fully attracted. No illegality had been committed by the Labour Court which could warrant interference by the learned Tribunal. There is no cavil that this Court is reluctant and loath in interfering with the remand orders but in a matter of this nature where the effect of the remand is to relegate the parties to a Court lacking jurisdiction in the matter, this Court can interfere to avoid perpetuation of an illegality.
Needless to observe that misapplication, non application or misconstruction of a legal provision does attract the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
' As a consequence of the above, order dated 14-5-2002, passed by the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is not sustainable in law. It is declared so. The petition is accepted with no order as to costs.