1. ' Respondent was an employee of the petitioner. In September 2002 a scheme of Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme was launched by the petitioner and the employees were free to opt for such Scheme. The offer was made by the petitioner on 5th September, 2002 which was accepted by the respondent and it is the case of the respondent that it was revoked by him on 7th November, 2002.
2. As per the case of the petitioner the offer was finalized On 27.11.2002 and thereafter on, 4.12.2002 the respondent was relieved from the duty. After having been relieved from the duty on 4:12.2002 the payment under the Golden Handshake Scheme was not made but was made finally in two instalments, first was made on 30th July, 2003 and the other payment was made on 5th May, 2004, however after receiving the first instalment on 20th July, 2003 the petitioner filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. On 10.10.2003 on account of Mubin-us-Salam's case, which is a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, the appeal before Federal Service Tribunal stood abated vide order dated 5.4.2006. Thereafter the Registrar of the Federal Service Tribunal communicated to the respondent that the appeal has abated, with the result that the respondent promptly filed a Grievance Application under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 before the Labour Court and the Labour Court partly allowed the application vide decision dated 13.6.2007. The Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on 24th August, 2010, hence this petition filed by the petitioner.
3. 'Counsel for the petitioner at the very outset took a legal objection that the proceedings before the Labour Court were coram-non-judice and without jurisdiction as for giving effect to the order of abatement in view of Mubin-us-Salam's case the Federal Service Tribunal ought to have passed a judicial order and the order of the Registrar was not sufficient. In support of this contention he has relied upon judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court delivered in Raja Riaz v. Chairman, Pakistan Space & Upper Atmosphere Research Commission, reported in SBLR 2008 SC 40. He next argued that once amount was received by the respondent under the Golden Handshake Scheme then he was not entitled to seek his reinstatement back in service. He also relied upon KLR 2009 Labour & Service Cases 26, KLR 2009 Labour & Service Cases 28, KLR 2009 Labour & service Cases 30, 2009 SLJ 615 and 2009 TD (Labour) 163.
4. ' In response to the arguments of the petitioner counsel, counsel for the respondent No, 1 argued that offer under the Golden Handshake Scheme was revoked on 7.11.2002 and thereafter the petitioner continued on duty and on 4.12.2002 relieved from service. He then filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal and upon its abatement, the respondent sought remedy before the Labour Court. He next contended that while respondent was out of service he met with an accident and did not have money for his treatment and therefore he was compelled to receive the amount in July, 2003 and May, 2004 which was determined by the petitioner under Golden Handshake Scheme. He also contended that under the Scheme also as long as the amount is not paid an employee was not to be relieved, from service but this was not done in this case. He also contended that there are concurrent findings of both Courts below whereby the respondent was reinstated back in service and therefore the petition is not maintainable. In support of his case he relied upon cases reported in SBLR 2008 SC 40, 2010 SCMR 1417, 2011 SCMR 1344, 1992 SCMR 2169, 2010 SCMR 1375, PLD 2007 Supreme Court 52, 2005 PLC (C.S) 1155, 2005 SCMR 97, 2008 SCMR 402, 2002 SCMR 142, 2000 SCMR 1964. He contended that under section 5 of the Contract Act an offer which was made to the respondent was revoked prior to its acceptance which has no legal value in law. In support of such contention he relied upon the case reported in 2005 PLC (C.S) 890. He also relied upon certain cases of the Honourable Supreme Court wherein it was held that receipt of the salary does not disentitle an employee to seek relief of his grievance.
5. ' Insofar as the first objection of the petitioner is concerned that there is no judicial order of abatement, we are of the view that the judgment of Raja Riaz's case relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable as in Raja Riaz's case it was held that there was no communication of abatement of the proceedings to the civil servant whose appeal was pending before the Federal Service Tribunal and who was not a party in Mubin-us-Salam's case. Treating his appeal to have abated without judicial order passed by Federal Service Tribunal in his case was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court to be of no legal effect and in that context it was held that unless there is a judicial order of abatement passed in every case by the Federal Service Tribunal an employee would not know of abatement of his appeal.
6. ' The judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Raja Riaz's case was delivered so as to give an opportunity to those whose appeals were to stand abated in order to facilitate them to seek relief before the appropriate forum. In the present case once the respondent as appellant before the Service Tribunal has himself resorted to legal remedy available under the law within the prescribed time then it cannot be said that without a judicial order of abatement passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, the proceedings filed by the respondent before the Labour Court are to be treated as nullity. However, we have noted that respondent was relieved from service on 4.12.2002 and thereafter he initiated no legal proceedings against the petitioner. Then on 30th July, 2003 he partly received payment under the Golden Handshake Scheme. After receiving the amount in July, 2003 he did not file any legal proceedings until 10.11.2003 when he filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. On 5.5.2004 he received the remaining amount under the Golden Handshake Scheme during pendency of his appeal before Services Tribunal. After acceptance of the amount under the Golden Handshake Scheme he cannot seek his re-induction back in service by filing legal proceedings.
7. ' Thus on his own freewill the respondent accepted the amount under the Golden Handshake Scheme, he cannot approbation and reprobate. After ten months of leaving his service the respondent filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. We therefore set aside the impugned judgment and allow this petition and hold that respondent was not entitled to be reinstated back in service.
8. Reinstatement Order Set Aside.