' MOHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN, (MEMBER).-The facts of the case leading to the present appeal, briefly speaking, are that the appellant was a permanent employee of the respondent and was working as a Work Supervisor. The Hydro-Electric Central Labour Union, a trade union of the WAPDA employees, entered into an agreement on the 6th November, 1976 with the WAPDA Management whereby certain monetary benefits were agreed to be given to certain categories of workers. This was resented to by the appellant and Malik Mustaq Ahmad, President and General Secretary, respectively, of another registered trade union namely, WAPDA Labour Union for the reason that the same benefits were not being extended to certain other categories of workers doing the similar job.
They staged a demonstration against the alleged discrimination. As a consequence thereof both the appellant and Malik Mushtaq Ahmed were removed from service by the Management of the WAPDA vide order dated 3rd January, 1977 made in purported exercise of the powers conferred under section 17(I-A) of the WAPDA Act. Aggrieved thereby the appellant and Malik Mushtaq Ahmad jointly submitted a representation dated 23rd January 1977 to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the Minister for Fuel, Power and Natural Resources and the Minister for Labour and Manpower, Government of Pakistan. A D. O. Was addressed by the then Labour Minister to the Minister for Water and Power requesting that direction be issued to the WAPDA Authorities to re- instate the appellant and Malik Mushtaq Ahmad, It further appears that the Regional Directorate of Labour Welfare, Lahore Region, Lahore, Government of the Punjab, also tried to pursuade the WAPDA Authorities to re-instate them, but all in vain. However, on the petitions submitted by them the Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, vide its orders dated 5th December, 1977, ordered the re- instatement of both of them. The WAPDA appealed against the said order of the Punjab Labour Court to the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which set aside the decision of the LabourCourt vide its order dated 31st December, 1977. In spite of this, however, the WAPDA, acting in pursuance of the decision of the Punjab Labour Court, re-instated Malik Mushtaq Ahmad vide Office Order dated 21st November 1978 while the appellant was not so re-instated.
2. The appellant appears to have filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court against the decision of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed on 28th January, 1979 holding that both the orders of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal were without lawful authority and that the appellant should have approached the Service Tribunal for relief. It may be mentioned here that the appellant had already submitted an appeal to this Tribunal which was received in the office of the Tribunal on 29th April, 1977, was admitted for regular hearing vide order of the Tribunal dated 22nd April 1979 and was heard by us on 30th March, 1982.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the same was mala fide. The learned counsel for the respondent was content on submitting only that the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to hear the present appeal is barred by section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act. He did not like to address us on merits of the case. He however, submitted for our perusal a copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition No, K246 of 1979 whereby it upheld the order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Mohammad Naseem v.
WAPDA. In the said case it was held by this Tribunal that it (the Tribunal) could not substitute its own opinion for that of the competent authority as regards the desirability or otherwise of continuing the petitioner in service, unless there was evidence of mala fide on the part of the WAPDA or the order was shown to be without jurisdiction. Quite obviously, the import of the above view of the Tribunal, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, is that if an order passed in exercise of the power under section 17(1-A) of the' WAPDA Act, is mala fide or without jurisdiction, the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to hear appeal against such an order notwithstanding the provisions of section 17(1-C) of the Act. In this view of the matter the objection of the learned counsel for the WAPDA regarding jurisdiction of this Tribunal, haying no substance, is repelled.
4. In the instant case the mala fide on the part of the WAPDA is established to our satisfaction inter alia for the main reason that the WAPDA had re-instated Malik Mushtaq Ahmad "in pursuance of the decision of the Punjab Labour Court" but in the case of the appellant it was not so done. This obvious discriminating treatment, by itself, is sufficient to conclude that the order removing the appellant from service is wholly devoid of good faith. Needless to say that any order made in bad faith, as in the case in hand, is nothing but mala fide. Such an order is a nullity in the eye of law and deserves only to be set.
5. Regarding the question of limitation raised by the respondent department in the preliminary objection filed on its behalf, it may be added that, as stated above, against the impugned order dated 3rd January, 1977 the appellant represented to the higher authorities on 23rd January, 1977 and after expiry of 90 days, submitted an appeal to this Tribunal, which was received in the office of the Tribunal on 29th April 1977. The appeal is, therefore, held to be in time and the objection of the respondent in this regard is overruled.
6. Accordingly we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellant shall be re- instated in service with all consequential benefits. There is no order as to costs.
7. Parties may be informed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.