' ZIA PERWEZ, J.--- This labour revision application arises out in pursuance of the information brought to the notice of this Court by placing copies of the order passed in Labour Revision Application No,43 in the light of the principle laid down by this Court that an application presented may only be treated as information and placed before the learned Judge hearing labour cases who will after application of his mind decide whether revisional powers may or may not be exercised.
2. Informant has intimated the exercise of jurisdiction by IV Sindh Labour Court in Grievance Application No,10 of 2007 after the abatement of pending appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal in pursuance of the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in case of Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602.
3. Brief facts are that the respondent was an employee of the applicant Messrs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation, a company owned by Government of Pakistan. After promulgation of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, the services of respondent were terminated by the applicant vide order, dated 21-3-2003. Departmental appeal against the order of removal, dated 3-4-2003 was rejected by the applicant vide order, dated 22-4-2003. Respondent preferred appeal before the Federal Services Tribunal. While the appeal was pending Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment of Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam (supra) while arriving as to the findings on the point of jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal to adjudicate such appeals, held the same to be beyond the scope of their jurisdiction to the extent discussed hereinafter, which also covers the case of the respondent. Respondent then approached the learned IV Sindh Labour Court under provisions of section 46 of I.R.O., 2002 by way of Grievance Application No,10 of 2007 along with an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX, rules .1 and 2 read with section 151, C.P.C. Seeking interim orders as to his ejectment from the premises allegedly occupied by him, possession whereof was disputed by the applicant. Objections as to jurisdiction were overruled by the learned Labour Court while assuming jurisdiction and passing the order on the aforesaid interlocutory application on 6-2-2007. Aggrieved by the same, information to this effect has been placed before the Court which has been registered as a labour revision application.
4. As the controversy involves pure question of law, notice was issued to the respondent for disposal of the application at this stage. However, in spite of service of notice, the respondent failed to make any appearance.
5. Heard Mr. Khalid Imran Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record and so also the case-law.
6. The Honourable Supreme Court while disposing of Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam case (supra) was pleased to provide the following guidelines with respect to the pending cases in paragraphs 108 and 109 of the said judgment:- "108. The threadbare discussion on the subject persuades us to hold:---
(1) Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 is, partially, ultra vires of Articles 240 and 260 of the Constitution, to the extent of the category of employees, whose terms and conditions of service have not been determined by the Federal Legislature and by a deeming clause they cannot be treated civil servants as defined under section 2(1)(b) of the CSA, 1973 and they are not engaged in the affairs of the Federation.
(2) Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 cannot be enforced in the absence of amendment in the definition of the civil servant under section 2(1) (b) of the CSA, 1973.
(3) The cases of the employees under section 2-A, STA, 1973, who do not fall within the definition of civil servant as defined in section 2(1)(b) of the CSA, shall have no remedy before the Service Tribunal, functioning under Article 212 of the Constitution and they would be free to avail appropriate remedy.
109. Now the question is as to what would be the effect of this judgment on the cases pending before this Court and Federal Service Tribunal. In this behalf it may be noted that following the rule of past and closed transactions, laid down in the case of Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 1445), it is directed as follows:--
(a) The cases which have been decided finally by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution shall not be opened and if any Review Petition, Misc. Application or Contempt Application, filed against the judgment is pending, it shall be heard independently and shall not be affected by the ratio of this judgment.
(b) The proceedings instituted either by an employee or by an employer, pending before this Court, against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, not covered by category (a) before this Court or the Service Tribunal shall stand abated, leaving the parties to avail remedy prevailing prior to promulgation of section 2-A of the STA, 1973.
(c) The cases or proceedings which are not protected or covered by this judgment shall be deemed to have abated and the aggrieved person may approach the competent forums for redressal of their grievances within a. Period of 90 days and the bar of limitation provided by the respective laws, shall not operate against them till the expiry of stipulated period.
(d) The cases in which the order of Service Tribunal has been implemented shall remain intact for a period of 90 days or till the filing of appropriate proceedings, whichever is earlier.
(e)The Service Tribunal shall decide pending cases under section 2-A of the STA, 1973 in view of the above observations. However, if any of the cases is covered by clause 'c' (ibid), a period of 90 days shall be allowed to aggrieved party to approach the competent forum for the redressal of its grievance."
7. After dismissal of their appeals in the light of aforesaid judgment, numerous cases were brought to the notice of this Court and came under examination before a Full Bench of this Court in case of Muhammad Dawood v. Federation of Pakistan 2007 PLC (C.S.) 1046 wherein it was observed that the cases of employees of statutory or other State controlled corporation were covered into following eight broad categories:--
(i) Where the petitioners have questioned the validity of the orders of abatement passed by the Service Tribunal.
(ii) Where implementation of the final orders of the Service Tribunal passed prior to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court judgment has been sought.
(iii) Where the petitioners have called in question orders passed in the exercise of powers under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 (R.S.O.).
(iv) Where violation of statutory rules of service has been urged.
(v) Where orders passed by the Management of public corporations have been assailed on grounds of mala fides, violation of principle of natural justice, etc.
(vi) Where despite non-existent of statutory rule the petitioners have claimed violation of internal service regulations of the public corporations are alleged.
(vii) Where breach of the terms of employment through contract has been complained of.
(viii) Where abatement of proceedings before the Service Tribunal or absence of jurisdiction entertained in new matters has been acknowledged but the jurisdiction of this Court to grant redress under Article 199 of the Constitution has been stressed upon."
8. The case of the petitioner involving termination of employment in pursuance of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 is covered under the third category.
9. While examining such cases, learned Full Bench for the reasons discussed in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the judgment observed in paragraph 10 observed as under:-- "(10) In addition to the above, it needs to be kept in view that Article 212(1)(a) of the Constitution contemplates establishment of administrative Courts or Tribunals to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to terms and conditions of persons who are or have been in the service of Pakistan. Since corporation employees have not been declared to be in the service of Pakistan under the R.S.O. Even through a legal fiction, we are of the view that section 10 of the Ordinance is also ultra vires Article 212 of the Constitution. In this view of the matter, we find it difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners."
10. After holding the provisions of section 10 of the R.S.O. To be ultra vires, the employees affected were however afforded an opportunity to the extent as envisaged under paragraphs Nos.29 and 30 of the judgment. In paragraph 30(ii) it has been specifically observed as under:--- "30. As a consequence:- (i)
(ii) All petitions complaining of removal under the provisions of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, having been taken in exercise of statutory powers, are maintainable and this Court would be competent to consider whether the action complained of is in accordance with provisions of the Ordinance."
11. It has already been laid down under the provisions of R.S.O. That the Prime Minister, or authority designated by him, is conferred with powers to take certain action against an employee of the corporation. Grievance against penalty imposed under section 3 was subject to reconsideration and redress by way of a representation under section 9 of the said Ordinance. However, the action under the Ordinance has the effect of overriding all existing laws in force. Furthermore, after clear and unambiguous findings of a Full Bench of this Court there remains no ambiguity calling for further clarification. The Labour Court while acting contrary to the findings of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Muhammad Dawood (supra) has exercised jurisdiction beyond the scope of its authority and hence the proceedings in Application No,10 of 2007 being without jurisdiction are hereby set aside along with impugned order, dated 6-2-2007.