ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Muhammad Aslam has made this appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore wherein he has implead--ed WAPDA, Lahore through its Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the order of the Superintending Engineer, Rawalpindi Circle, dated 24-1-1962, and appellate order dated 27-11-1973 of the Chief Engineer, Sargodha Region, Sargodha be set aside, after declaring them to be illegal; ultra vires, void ab initio and the appellant be allowed to continue in service with all back benefits including lien.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was serving as Sub---Divisional Clerk at Phullarwan.
The appellant sent one month notice of resignation on 31-7-1961 which was rejected vide order dated 18-8-1961 by S. E., Rawalpindi Circle, Rawalpindi as under the West Pakistan Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958 which makes all employment under Govern--ment as an essential service, the appellant could not leave the job. In the meanwhile the appellant also made a request to withdraw his one month's notice for resignation vide his application dated 27-8-1961 addressed to the Superintending Engineer (Electricity), Rawalpindi Circle, Rawalpindi, However, in the meanwhile the resignation of the appellant was accepted as informed vide XEN EID Sargodha Division, Sargodha vide his endst. No. 1198, dated 24-1-1962. The appellant made a. Representation to the Regional Manager (North) Electricity, WAPDA, Peshawar which was sent by him to S. E.
Electricity, Rawalpindi Circle, Rawalpindi and XEN, Electricity, Sargodha vide order dated 12-3-1962 that "if what the applicant states be correct, he should be allowed to serve". The matter remained under correspondence and finally vide order dated 27-11-1973, the Chief Engineer, WAPDA, Sargodha Region, Sargodha directed the appellant that his appeal for re-instatement in service cannot be considered at this stage, it also became time-barred. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. On the outset preliminary objections were raised by the learned counsel for the respondent about the main--tainability and jurisdiction of this Tribunal to adjudicate this appeal. The basic and most important objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent has been that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred. He argued that last order was passed by the appellate Authority on 27-11-1973, whereby the appeal of the appellant was rejected ; but the appellant has filed this appeal to the Tribunal on 11-1-1981. Thus the appeal is hopelessly time-barred and he prayed that this appeal be dismissed on this score alone. Rebutting this, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an application under sections 5, 12, 14 of the Limitation Act has also been filed with the appeal for condonation of the delay. It was submitted by the appellant's counsel that the appellant has been seeking remedies by filing suits in the Court of Civil Judge, Sargodha, Additional District Judge, Sargodha and then appeal and revision appeals in the High Court and finally when it was decided by the High Court that the appeal lies within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal then the appellant had filed this appeal with the Tribunal. Thus it was not mistake of the appellant and he has been prosecuting for his redress with due diligence in the Courts mentioned above. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this was also done on the expert advice of his counsel and thus it was not a mistake on the part of the appellant. He prayed that under the circumstances the period spent by the appellant in other legal litigation may be computed and appeal treated in time.
5. On our query, the appellant's counsel could not satisfy us that this was an honest mistake by his counsel for advising the appellant to seek the remedies from other Courts when this Tribunal had come into force in the year 1974, as on establishment of the Punjab Service Tribunal on 20th June, 1974 all suits, appeals and applications regarding any matter within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal pending in any Court immediately before the establishment of this Tribunal abated on the establishment of this Tribunal, as per section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the documents so attached with this appeal. It is a fact that the appeal of the appellant was rejected vide order dated 27-11-1973 by the Chief Engineer, Sargohda Region, Sargodha and the appellant had filed this appeal to this Tribunal on 11-1-1981. The appellant remained seeking the remedies in other Courts till this time. The Punjab Service Tribunal was established and came into force in the yea 1974 and as per section 8 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 all the suits, appeals and applications regarding any matter within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal pending in any Court immediately before the establishment of this Tribunal abated on the establishment of this Tribunal.
Thus, it was incumbent upon the appellant that he should have filed an appeal to this Tribunal within ninety days of its establishment as per section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
But, the appellant remained seeking remedies in other Courts till 1981 when he filed his appeal to this Tribunal on 11-1-1981. As mentioned in para. 5 above, the appellant/appellant's counsel has not been able to convince us that this was a valid mistake on the advice of a counsel. Thus, they have failed to persuade us to condone this delay for the period from 27-11-1973 to 11-1-1981.
7. Keeping the above analysis in view, we hold that the appeal is hopeless time-barred and is dismissed on this score alone.
There will be no orders as to costs. 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.