HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- Facts leading to this review petition are that the petitioner filed Appeal No,839(R)(C.E.) of 2004 on 23-4-2004 before the Federal Service Tribunal but Registrar of the Tribunal intimated the petitioner that in view of the judgment in the case of Muhammad Mubeen- us-Salam and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others PLD 2006 SC 602, his appeal stood abated. The petitioner promptly served the grievance notice and then filed Petition No,126 of/2006 before the Punjab Labour Court No,
1. Notices were issued to the respondents, petitioner's evidence was recorded but respondents' evidence could not be recorded, despite several adjournments. However, the respondents raised an objection in respect of competency of the petition before the Labour Court on the ground that due to another judgment in the case of Raja Riaz v. Chairman Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission, Karachi 2008 SCMR 402 judicial order should have been passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, as in the present case no judicial order was passed and only a notice by the Registrar of Federal Service Tribunal Was issued, so without having judicial order of the Federal Service Tribunal, the petition before the Labour Court could not have been processed. The learned Labour Court dismissed the petitioner's petition on this score only which was assailed in Labour Appeal No,404 of 2007 and the same was dismissed through judgment (for text of this judgment, see the previous reported judgment) dated 12-9-2008 and that is sought to be reviewed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the judgment, dated 12-9-2008 the following were escaped from the notice of this Court, resulting into serious miscarriage of justice:-- -
(i) The provisions of section 10, C.P.C. Whereby institution and hearing of the causes in two forums simultaneously could be allowed;
(ii) the learned Labour Court as well as this Court did not correctly interpret and apply the judgment passed in Raja Riaz's case;
(iii) Para. 109-C of the judgment in Mubeen-us-Salam's case as well as the effect of judgment in the case of Muhammad Idrees v. Agricultural Development. Bank of Pakistan and others 2007 PLC (C.S.) 1332 were not taken into consideration.
(iv) The miseries which are to be faced by the petitioner as well as similarly placed persons cannot be equated in terms of anything, this very fact was also ignored by this Court.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner with vehemence and submits that in the presence of judgment in Raja Riaz's case, without having a judicial order from the Federal Service Tribunal, petition before the Labour Court could not be held competent.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. There are certain admitted facts which cannot be denied and those are:---
(i) In view of the judgment of Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others PLD 2006 SC 602 aggrieved persons were given 90 days' time to approach the competent forum which limitation started from the date of announcement of judgment i.e, 27-6-2006.
(ii) The petitioner approached the Federal Service Tribunal before the announcement of judgment in Muhammad Mubeen-usSalam's case, his appeal was pending and the effect of that judgment was obvious.
(iii) Instead of making his case a time-barred, the petitioner rushed to the Labour Court.
(iv) The petitioner received a notice from the Registrar of Federal Service Tribunal intimating him that his appeal before the Tribunal has become abated.
(v) Despite non-having a judicial order by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding abatement of petitioner's appeal, the fate of the said appeal could not have been different which was virtually came into field through the judgment of Muhammad Mubeen-usSalam as well as through notice sent by the Registrar of the Federal Service Tribunal.
' Section 10, C.P.C. Is much clear.
(vi) Even in a case reported Muhammad Asghar v. Federal Service Tribunal and 3 others PLD 1996 SC 195, abatement is held to be automatic.
6. When all these admitted facts are apparent on record and these were not considered while passing the judgment dated 12-9-2008, I am of the firm view that the same is to be reviewed in the interest of justice.
7. If the provisions of section 10, C.P.C. Read with law laid down in the case of Pakistan through General Manager, PAFI, Lahore v. Messrs Agro Marketing Corporation and others 1981 CLC 443 is taken into consideration, the conclusion can be safely drawn that the learned Labour Court instead of dismissing the petitioner's petition should have adjourned the case till passing the judicial order by the Federal Service Tribunal, whereas the learned Labour Court decided the matter in haste, did not wait the judicial order of F.S.T. In respect of abatement of the petitioner's appeal resulting into miseries which are to be faced by the petitioner and the similarly placed persons by way of running from pillar to post for the redressal of their grievance.
8. Unfortunately, these poor persons were otherwise agitating the matters before the Federal Service Tribunal in view of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act and now after years and years they are supposed to approach different forums but even then they are leaving to face technicalities which otherwise is against the spirit of law, thus, relying on the judgment report as Mrs. Munawar Sani v. Director Army Education 1991 SCMR 135, it is held that the order passed by the learned Labour Court is a nullity in the eye of law. Resultantly, by allowing this petition the judgment dated 12-9-2008 is reviewed, meaning thereby that the appeal filed by the petitioner is allowed, the case is remanded to the learned Labour Court with a direction to decide the same afresh and that too on merits.