Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, J.--After having been proceeded against by the authorities of United Bank Limited, Muhammad Aslam Javed was dismissed from service on 8.7.1986. He challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court concerned under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Vide judgment dated 29.2.1992 the Labour Court reinstated the petitioner. The bank went in appeal before Labour Appellate Tribunal, which appeal, on abolition of the Tribunal, got transferred to the High Court. Through the impugned judgment dated 8.4.2005, such appeal was accepted and the order of bank authorities was restored. Muhammad Aslam Javed seeks leave to appeal.
2. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court with reference to Section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. This Court accordingly had issued notice to the respondent-bank which is today represented by Mian Mahmood Saleem, learned counsel for the respondent-bank. It is an admitted fact that the appeal of the bank before Labour Appellate Tribunal or High Court was pending when Section 2-A got inserted into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 with effect from 10.6.1997. As a forum in the shape of Service Tribunal got established through Section 2-A of the Act, the appeal pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal abated forthwith. On crucial date, it would be deemed that no appeal was pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal after 10.6.1997 by force of law.
3. The remedy provided to the parties concerned is available in proviso (2) Section 6 of the Act, which allowed a period of 90 days to a party concerned to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The bank, being appellant, never invoked the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal within 90 days and even long thereafter. The result is that the learned High Court has decided the appeal which was never in existence before it and which had abated long ago on 10.6.1997.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that it was a serious case of embezzlement and that the delay involved may be condoned and also that the objection on the jurisdiction of High Court be turned down due to not having been taken before the High Court at the first instance.
5. The question of condonation is not at all tenable because the respondent-bank has not filed any cause where the delay needed to be condoned. The raising of objection at the first instance becomes material when some forum decides a matter pending before it. In the instant case, by force of law the appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal or the High Court had abated long before, on 10.6.1997. No cause would be deemed to have been pending before the Court due to the operation of abatement. The High Court, therefore, had neither the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter nor any matter was legally pending before it.
6. Consequently, the petition after conversion into appeal, is hereby accepted and the impugned judgment dated 8.4.2005 is hereby set aside.