' The complainant Al-Haj Syed Ghaffar Ali son of Syed Shakoor Ali was recruited through competitive examination and on 4th December, 1969 he was appointed as Telecommunication Technician in the. Karachi Telecommunication Region (K.T.R.). On 29th April, 1976, the General Manager, K.T.R. Deputed him for Engineering Supervisor Training Course E. S. 1/6 (External) on the basis of his then seniority, under rule 15 (i) of the Engineering Supervisors Recruitment Rules, 1972, for future promotion as Engineering Supervisor, if and when a vacancy occurs in the section. He joined the training class at the Regional Telecommunication Training School (R.T.T.S.) Malir, Karachi.
But, before he could complete it, he was deputed for foreign service to Saudi Arabia alongwith others, vide Office Order No, T & D 25-150/75, dated 8th June, 1976 conveying sanction of the President to the deputation of foreign service. Accordingly, complainant was relieved from the training class and struck off the list of trainees. He returned to Pakistan from Saudi Arabia after about five years and resumed duty as Telecommunication Technician on 6th April, 1982 and was posted at Nazimabad Division (K.T.R.). Thereafter, complainant submitted a request to the General Manager, K.T.R. On 13th April, 1982 to allow him to join for E.S. Training in the current class at R.T.T.S., Karachi, as he was an approved candidate for the said training, which he had commenced in April, 1976 but which could not be completed as he was deputed for foreign service in Saudi Arabia, as stated earlier. His request was granted and the G.M.K.T.R. Passed an order on 15th May, 1982 deputing him for ES-1/10 (External) training course as a special case. The complainant joined the class at the training school. The C. B. A. Union namely, Pakistan Telecommunication Engineering Line staff Union (P.T.E.L.S.U.) K.T.R. Raised certain demands, one of which (demand No, 11) was for training of staff in E. S. (External) course agreed in the past which had allegedly not been implemented fully. These demands were discussed, at a joint meeting held on 22nd June, 1982 between the Representative of the Management, comprising the General Manager, K.T.R., Assistant General Manager,- K.T.R. And S. M. Raza Assistant Director (Welfare) the present respondents 1 to 3, and office-bearers of the Union namely Haji Muhammad Yunus, its President/Central, Mubarak Khan, President, K.T.R., P.T.E.L.S.U., Abdul Rashid Khan, Press Secretary, K.T.R., P.T.E.L.S.U. And Sultan Treasurer of the K.T.R., P.T.E.L.S.U., the present respondents Nos, 4 to 7. The minutes of the said meeting recorded that it was decided to take up the case with the training organisation to ascertain the next date for class in this course and arrange deputation of eligible staff after observing formalities early. No specific demand was however, raised by the Union for recalling the complainant from his training class. But the Corrigendum to the said minutes 'was issued some three days later on 3rd July, 1982, purporting to include a further paragraph below the last paragraph of item No, 11 that "it is further decided that Mr. A. Ghaffar T/T deputed in training ES-I.
Course, be withdrawn being junior to many officials in his cadre on the basis of existing instruction of seniority received from the Director General T & T, Islamabad" Exh. P/7/2. Therefore, the General Manager, K.T.R. Issued an immediate order on the same date withdrawing him from training class and repatriating him to his parent division. Exh. D/4. The Complainant was repatriated with immediate effect from the strength of the School as unqualified to report back to his parent Region K.T.R. For further posting. It appears that the original seniority list of Telecom. Technicians in the K.T.R. Which was prepared in the year, 1976 (Exh. D/1) in which the seniority of the complainant was shown at serial number 158 and on the basis of which, he was deputed for training -in the Engineering Supervisor's course E S-1/10. On 29th April, 1976 was revised in the year, 1979 on instructions from the Director General, Telegraph and Telephone Department, contained in his Memo. No, A-110/12/68, dated 10th July, 1974. (Annexure R/1) to respondents parawise comments).
1. The seniority list was revised in view of the abolition of certain defunct cadres and their conversion to the new cadre of Telecom/Technicians, viz ; cadres of Mistries, Cable Jointers, Telephone Inspectors etc. The relevant seniority of T/Ts who were direct recruits vis-a-vis, department/defunct cadres, was governed by a formula agreed with the Unions. In the revised seniority list as prepared in 1979 (Exh. D/2), the complainant's seniority stood at serial No, 416.
Feeling aggrieved by his repatriation from the training, the complainant submitted a grievance petition to the General Manager, K. T. R. On 19th July, 1982 and also a petition to the President of Pakistan. As he received no reply, he filed the present complaint before the Commission on 9th September, 1982 against the aforenamed respondents, alleging in para. 20 thereof that the General Manager in collusion with the office-bearers of the Union (respondents 4 to 7) withdrew him from his training class in order to victimise him, as he had refused to yield to their threats to leave his Union and to join their own C. B. A. Union, which was mala fide and illegal.
2. The General Manager, K. T. R. Submitted parawise comments justifying the complainant's repatriation from training on the ground that he was junior most Telecom. Technician as per the revised seniority list, but due to oversight he was deputed for training and that when the actual position was disclosed, the complainant was recalled from the training class and repatriated to his parent division, as the Union took strong exception to complainant's training on the ground that he was junior most and to prevent infringement of the rights of the seniors. I held a preliminary enquiry and examined Iqbal Ahmed Siddiqui, U. D. C. From the office of the General Manager, K.T.R. Who produced the respective seniority lists. I also examined the complainant. I framed charges against the office-beares of the union, respondents 4 to 7 under section 53 read with section 16 (1) (b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The accused then submitted an application under section 249-A of the Cr. P. C. Through Mr. Ali Amjad, Advocate, praying that on the basis of the statements record so far, no prima facie case of unfair labour practice had been made out and the accused be acquitted.
3. I have heard Mr. All Amjad, Advocate for the accused respondents 4 to 7, Mr. Junaid Farooqi, Advocate for the complainant and Syed Murtaza Hussain Advocate for the G.M.K.T.R.
4. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that no prima facie case has been made out by the complainant. There is neither any plea in the complaint, nor any statement in his deposition that any kind of pressure or coercion was brought to bear upon the General Manager K.T.R. For passing the impugned order, dated 3rd July, 1982 'revoking his earlier order, dated 12th May, 1982 in respect of complainant's deputation for training. Nor complainant has stated in his evidence that accused office-bearers of the C.B.A. Union were intimidating and forcing him to leave his Union and to join their C.B.A. Union. The only statement made by the complainant in his evidence is that the corrigendum was inserted on the instructions/instigation of the accused Mubarak Khan, President of the Union respondent No, 5 who demanded illegal gratification from him, which is not covered under section 16(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. I have no reason to doubt the statement of the General Manager contained in his parawise comments that the complainant was deputed for training in E.S.-1 course on the basis of his earlier seniority due to oversight. There is, therefore, force in the application under section 249-A, Cr. P. C. And in the circumstances, I would acquit the accused Nos, 4 to 7.
5. The legal plea of the complainant however, has to- be dealt with, namely whether the General Manager K.T.R. Could pass a valid, legal order on 3rd July, 1982 revoking his earlier order, dated 12th May, 1982 withdrawing the complainant from training after he had commenced his training. The General Manager, K.T.R. As Head of the Region, was fully empowered under rule 15(1) of the Engineering Supervisors Recruitment Rules, 1972 to select Telecom. Technicians on seniority-cum- fitness basis for training in Engineering Supervisors course appropriate to the section, as prescribed in Appendix `E' thereto, with a view to their subsequent promotion as Engineering Supervisors. There is no doubt that if such an order for selection had been passed by an oversight or mistake, the General Manager would be quite competent to withdraw or cancel his order because, apart from section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897,1 a power conferred by Statutory Rules to passs an order includes also a power to rescind the order so issued. Government must in the nature of things for proper discharge of its functions, have power to recall its own orders for correcting mistakes or errors of judgment or orders passed through oversight. But this power of rescinding and recalling its earlier order, locus poenitentiae, will not be available to the Government after the order sought to be revoked, has been carried into effect or a decisive step has been taken, or a person has become entitled to a benefit there under. The principle of law restricting the right of the authority to withdraw its own order, was laid down by Supreme Court in several cases ; Shahbaz v. The State , Lt.-Col. G. L. Bhattacharya v. The State and Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farooqi .
6. In the first mentioned case the Punjab Government had passed an order remitting the sentence of Shahbaz with a direction that he should be released on Independence day 14th August, 1954. But a day before on 13th August, 1954 the Punjab Government, cancelled the order of remission. It was held that since the order had not taken effect, cancellation of the earlier order of remission was valid. In G. L. Bhattacharya's case, which was also a case of remission of sentence of the convicted accused, the Government of East Pakistan had passed an order on 21st June, 1962 remitting four years out of 8 years sentence of imprisonment awarded by the Military Court. Three months later on 3rd September, 1962 the Government cancelled its aforesaid previous order. But, before its cancellation,- the original order had been communicated to the Superintendent, Dacca Central Jail and an entry was made to that effect in the prisoner's history ticket on 2nd July, 1962. The Supreme Court affirming the judgment of the High Court held that by communicating tlat Provincial Government's order of remission of sentence to the Superinten-1 2 3 ' dent of the Central Jail, and by recording of the order in prisoner's history ticket, a decisive step had been taken, and that the prisoner had acquired the right to claim the benefit of the remission and the revocation of the order of remission was held to be invalid.
7. In the last mentioned case of Pakistan v. Muhammad Hamayatullah Farooqi, an order was passed by the President of Pakistan on 1st October, 1959 on respondent's appeal, fixing his starting salary Rs, 1,000 p. m. The said order was communicated to the Secretary of concerned Ministry.
However, some three years later on 26th August, 1962 the order was withdrawn by the President, due to certain facts and circumstances, the High Court held that the subsequent order was without lawful authority on the ground that it was passed without affording him an opportunity of being heard. The Supreme Court agreeing with the decision of the High Court observed, at page 412.
"There can hardly be any dispute with the rules as laid down in these cases (discussed above by me) that apart from the provisions of section 21 of the General Clauses Act, locus poenitentiae, i. e.
The power of receding till a decisive step is taken, is available to the Government or the relevant authorities. In fact, the existence of such a power is necessary in the case of all authorities empowered to pass orders to retrace the wrong steps taken by them. The authority that has the power to make an order has also the power to undo it. But this is subject to the exception that where the order has taken legal effect, and in pursuance thereof, certain rights have been created in favour of any individual, such an order cannot be withdrawn or rescinded to the detriment of those rights."
8. In the instant case before me, there is no doubt that the original order, dated 12th May, 1982 deputing the complainant for training in E.S.-I course was fully implemented, because the complainant had already joined the training class and was undergoing training when the subsequent order was passed on 3rd July, 1982 cancelling the original order without so much as giving him an opportunity of bearing. The complainant had acquired the benefit of a right to training which carried with it a right of future promotion. As such, I am of the firm view that the' subsequent after, dated 3rd July, 1982 was not competent nor valid in law.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the original order deputing the complainant for training in E.S.-1 course, dated 12th May, 1982 stands and is revived. The General Manager, K.T.R. Is directed to give immediate effect to it.
10. With these observations the complaint of unfair labour practice is dismissed. P L, D 1956 FC 46 PLD 1964 SC 503 PLD 1969 SC 407