1. Facts of the petition are very simple. The petitioner was removed by employer vide order dated 27.2.2002. Firstly, he filed appeal before Federal Service Tribunal and appeal was allowed vide order dated 26.1.2006. The operative part of the order read as under:-- ".................... We have come to the conclusion that the respondent have failed to bring home the allegation to the appellant contended in the charge-sheet dated 17.1.2000. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 27.2.2002 and direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service with full back benefits."
2. Respondent No. 2 filed a civil petition for leave to appeal which abated in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Mubeen-usSalam and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2006 SC 602) and an abatement order was passed by the Supreme Court on 18.10.2006. In the meanwhile the petitioner, in pursuance of the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, was reinstated in service. However, back benefits were not paid to him. The petitioner applied for back benefits but those back benefits were not released to him. Consequently, this Constitutional petition has been filed with a prayer that order of Federal Service Tribunal which has been implemented in part be implemented in full. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the case of Syed Shujaat Ali Vs. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation and another' (2010 PLC (SC) 118) to contend that since the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal has been partly implemented by the respondent corporation notwithstanding the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Idrees Vs. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 681) it is obligation of the respondent corporation to completely implement judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. Learned counsel referred to the case of Aziz-ur-Rehman's Chaudhry Vs. Federation of Pakistan (SBLR 2009 ,,Sindh 1369) to contend that since Federal Service Tribunal has no power to execute its on judgments, therefore this Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction can order implementation and execution of judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel for respondent corporation referred to the case of Muhammad ldrees Vs. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others (PLD 2007 SC 681) and contended that effect of the case of Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam supra is that not only the CPLA in the Supreme Court abated, the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal which had been challenged in such. CPLA also abated. Learned counsel further submitted by relying upon the case of Syed Niaz Hussain Shah Bukhari. Vs. Oil and Gas Development Corporation Limited (2003 SCM R 228) that since the petitioner did not work for the respondent corporation during the intervening period he is not entitled to back benefits. Learned counsel also submitted that Pakistan Steel does not have statutory rules and therefore writ petition is not maintainable. In this connection he relied upon Pakistan International Airline. Corporation and others Vs. Tanweer-ur-Rehman's and others (PLD 2010 SC 676). On the same judgment the learned counsel further relied upon for his contention that the petition is grossly hit by latches as period of 90 days was prescribed and it was filed much after expiry of that period. Mr. Ashiq Raza, D.A.G. Supported contentions of learned counsel for respondent corporation.
4. We have considered this submission made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record. As far as contention of learned counsel with his reliance on Syed Riaz Hussain Shah Bukhari's case that under the principle of no work no were the petitioner was not entitled to back benefits is concerned, we cannot go into that question because Federal Service Tribunal has passed judgment directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with back benefits and we are not sitting as a Court of appeal against judgment of the Tribunal. As far as contentions of the petitioner with reference to the case of Tanvir-ur-Rehman's case (supra) are concerned both these contentions have no applicability to the fact of the present petition. Firstly, it is not a case where employee is seeking any relief in respect of his terms and conditions of service. He is seeking relief in terms of implementation of judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. It has also been contended by learned counsel for petitioner by relying upon Aziz-urRehman's Chaudhry's case that since Federal Service Tribunal does not have power to get its on judgment. Implemented this Constitutional petition would be maintainable for the purpose of getting judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal implemented. Secondly, the period of 90 days prescribed is in context of Muhammad Mubeenus-Salam's case. If any such period would be applicable to the respondent corporation and is not applicable to the petition of the petitioner.
5. Judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal has been implemented by the respondent corporation but only in part. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Syed Shujaat All (supra) wherein the present respondents were also the respondents has held that where employer has implemented judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal in part it will not be available to it plead that judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal has been washed away in view of dicta in Muhammad Salem's case. Judgment of one Division Bench is binding on the subsequent Division Bench as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Multline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others (1995 SCM R 362). We, therefore, following judgment of Syed Shujjat Al.s case direct the respondent corporation to, within a period of one month, pay back benefits to the petitioner. This Constitutional petition is disposed of in the above terms.