HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J. --- Facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner joined Pakistan International Airlines (P.I.A.) as Air Hostess vide order dated 11.8.1992 she performed the duties for 13-long years but on the basis of overweight she was terminated from service through order dated 25.8.2005. The petitioner approached the Federal Service Tribunal but her appeal was abated inconsequence of Muhammad Mubeen-ul-Islam and others v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2006 SC 602) and then the petitioner approached the Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore under Section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 but the learned Labour Court dismissed the petitioner's petition on 10.7.2007 on the ground that West Pakistan industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable to the employees P.I.A. The judgment of the learned Labour Court is assailed in Labour Appeal No. 245/2007 before this Court and, now. It is transferred to the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact the petitioner if proceeded, could be under the provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 whereas the termination order is passed keeping aside the specific law which is a sufficient ground for the interference of this Court. Further submits that -in identical cases, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan has already taken suo motu notice and suspended the notices issued for the termination of similarly placed colleagues and the petitioner is entitled for the same relief on the touchstone of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has already availed the alternate remedy by way of filing Labour appeal, which is still sub-judice before the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal hence the writ petition is not competent. Further submits that certain disputed facts are involved in this, writ petition, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
He also submits that practically the petitioner has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of learned Labour Court because the petitioner is not a workman so the learned Labour Court rightly dismissed the petitioner's petition and even the petitioner cannot file the writ petition too because the writ petition is not maintainable.
3. In rebuttal the learned counsel for the petitioner candidly submits that if the learned counsel for the respondents takes a categorical stand that the petitioner is not a workman, the learned 'Labour Court's jurisdiction cannot be attracted in his case, he is ready to withdraw the Labour appeal and shall contest the present writ petition on the ground taken in the writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents could not respond to this offer however reiterates his arguments that as the petitioner has already= availed the remedy of appeal before the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal hence the petitioner cannot insist for the issuance of writ.
5. Argumpnts heard; record perused.
6. So far the repeated submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that alternate remedy is not only available but is availed so the writ petition is not competent. Suffice it to refer to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of It. Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan v. The Controller of Estate Duty (PLD 1961 SC 119), Mst. Sattan and .Others v.
Group Captain Masroor Hussain, Officer Commanding P.A.F. Station, Sargodha (PLD 1962 (W.P.)
Lahore 151, Muhammad Akram Butt v. Government of Pakistan and 3 others (PLD 1978 Karachi 132) and Farzand Raza Naqvi (2004 SCMR 400) wherein it is held that even in case of availability of alternate remedy the writ petition is competent.
7. In another case reported as Pakistan Television v. Muhammad Siddique (2007 PLC (CS) 1244) wherein it is held that "despite appropriate forum exists and remedy is available but to avoid time consuming/lengthy process and to safe precious time of the parties and heavy expenses the writ petition is maintainable/entertained."
8. The present case is a case of real hardship, after termination from service the petitioner rushed to Federal Service Tribunal .But due to judgment of Muhammad Mubeen-ul-lslam and others v.
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2006 SC 602) her appeal was abated, she approached the learned Labour Court where the respondents/corporationtook a specific stance that the petitioner is not workman and the learned Labour Court cannot assume/exercise jurisdiction in the petitioner's case and on this objection the petitioner was non-suited, she filed Labour Appeal which of course is not decided so far but keeping in view the specific stance of the respondents in respect of petitioner's case status the petitioner filed this writ petition. In these circumstances I am of the view that the petitioner rightly invoked the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 because what else the petitioner could do except to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 thus the objection of the respondents' learned counsel is repelled.
9. So far the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents that this is a case of disputed facts and cannot be resolved in the writ petition, I am afraid that this contention or the learned counsel is not supported by the documentary evidence because the matter is simple, the petitioner is terminated from service on the ground that she is overweight, the petitioner is not disputing that she is overweight but at the same time the petitioner submits that despite overweight she cannot be ousted from service rather she could be adjusted at ground duty as in other cases of P.I.A. Is extending benefit to some other's. During the arguments a copy of the press release issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan is also placed on record, which shall be useful to be reproduced as under:- "SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN. PRESS RELEASE.
ORDER IN P.I.A. FEMALE CABIN CREW CASE.
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice of Pakistan has directed P.I.A. To allow the female cabin crew of P.I.A. To resume their duties. The Chief Justice gave the decision on Complaint of P.I.A. Female Crew in which the Honourable Chief Justice had taken Suo Motu notice.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred some press clipping in support of his submissions that even now-a-days his lordship the Chief Justice of Pakistan Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, is taking suo motu notices in case of employees like the petitioner who are being victimized on the basis of whims and moods, pick and choose.
11. The perusal of termination order dated 25.8.2005 reveals that the petitioner is found unfit for flying duty on account of overweight and the management has decided to terminate her service on the said ground whereas it is not denied by the respondents that the petitioner could be adjusted on ground duty instead of termination.
12. In the attending circumstances, the impugned termination order dated 25.8.2005 is set aside; the petitioner is reinstated into service. The respondents are directed to adjust the petitioner against any appropriate ground duty.
The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.