' JUSTICE (RETD.) TANVIR AHMED KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- The complainant Malik Muhammad Hussain has filed this complaint under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as an Ordinance) for initiating action against the respondents making grievance that the order earlier passed by the Commission on 24th of June, 1996 in Case No,4A(1373)/96 has been flouted.
2. I have gone through the complaint as well as the documents appended with this complaint. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the present complainant filed a petition No,4A(1373)/96 on 20-6-1996 taking exception to the charge-sheet issued on 5-6-1996 by the respondents on the ground that the same was belated and has been issued in a mala fide manner. A learned Single Member through order, dated 24-6-1996 issued pre-admission notice to the respondent-Bank with further direction that in the meantime the respondent-Bank might proceed with the inquiry on the charge-sheet or otherwise but no final action should be taken till the disposal of petition. The aforementioned petition was dismissed in default and was consigned to record by the learned Single Member through his order, dated 15-12-1998. Thereafter the respondent-Bank terminated the services of the complainant through an order, dated 12-7-1999 when there was no restraint order.
The complainant subsequent to his termination filed an application for restoration of the, petition, in which a notice. To the other side was given by the learned Member on 28th of July, 1999.
Thereafter through an order, dated 11th of September, 1999 the application of the complainant for the restoration of his petition was accepted with a cost of Rs,200. Thereafter the case was again taken up on 25th of September, 1999 and was adjourned to 4th of October, 1999 to decide on the point as to whether after the restoration of the petition the original condition and status of the complainant should prevail. However, before said date the respondent filed Writ Petition No,18154 of 1999 and a learned Single Judge of the Honourable Lahore High Court Lahothrough order, dated 30th of September, 1999 admitted the same to regular hearing and stayed proceedings before the learned Single Member. The said Writ Petition is still pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has resisted the complaint and has stated at the bar that the services of the complainant were terminated in accordance with law and rules during the period when there was no retraint order. He has also made reference to decision of learned Full Bench passed in Appeals Nos.12(11) of 2004 and 12(12) of 2004 to substantiate his argument.
4. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the documents appended with this complaint. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the petition in which the restraint order was passed on 24-6-1996 was dismissed on 15-12-1998 for non-prosecution. The services of the complainant were terminated on 12-7-1989 when no matter was pending before the Commission.
5. This being the position when there is no restraint order and as services were terminated after one year of the dismissal of the petition for non-prosecution, this complaint having no force is dismissed.