' This order would dispose of the two appeals, namely, Appeal No. SUK-142/83 and Appeal No. SUK- 143/83 in respect of the two respondents, respectively lqbal Mujeeb and Jamshed Farooq.
2. These appeals were filed at the belated stage but the time limit was condoned by the High Court of Sind in the two writ petitions filed by the appellants.
3. The two appeals have a chequered history and a background of a long litigations. The respondent, lqbal Mujeeb a clerk of Habib Bank Ltd., and Jamshed Farooq, a Cashier of the same bank were charge-sheeted, respectively on 4-7-1978 and 8-7-1978, for disobedience, misbehaviour and insubordination. The domestic enquiry was conducted in respect of the two respondents and both were dismissed as a result of domestic enquiry on 12-8-1978. Thereafter, the two respondents lqbal Mujeeb and Jamshed Farooq gave notices of grievances which were rejected by the appellant-bank on 27-9-1978. Thereafter, grievance applications were filed before the Sind Labour Court No.VII at Sukkur, being Applications Nos. 263 and 264 of 1978.
4. The appellant-bank filed a reply statement and contested the cases on merit as well as on legal grounds. The learned Vllth Labour Court vide its Order, dated 12-5-1979, dismissed the grievance petitions both on met-it as well as on legal grounds. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before this Tribunal but was not pressed by the two respondents as they undertook to file departmental appeals as provided under rule 9 of the Efficiency and Discipline (Banks & Financial Institutions)
Rules, 1975. The order of this Tribunal, dated 9-1-1980 was passed. In view of the order, dated 9-1- 1980, the respondents filed appeals to the President of the Habib Bank Limited on 19-1-1980 and the same were rejected. Therefore, against the dismissal of departmental appeals, the two respondents preferred fresh grievance notices on 22-2-1980 which were again rejected. The two grievance applications under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, were preferred and were decided by the learned Labour Court holding that the previous orders of the Labour Court operated as res judicata in the matters and no fresh grievance applications were maintainable. As against the dismissal of the grievance applications, the respondents again filed appeals before this Tribunal resulting in that this Tribunal ordered that the decision of Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur was set aside and the cases were remanded for decisions on merit by the Labour Court.
5. Against the order of this Tribunal, dated 21-2-1981, the appellants filed a Constitutional Petition No.391 of 1981 and 393 of 1981 in the Sind High Court impugning the validity of the remand order, dated 21-2-1981. However, before the writ petitions could progress, the Labour Court proceeded with the cases and granted adjournments upto 25-4-1981, when finally the adjournment was refused.
6. Since the Writ Petitions Nos. 391 and 393 of 1981 were pending, the appellant-bank prayed in the High Court that the Labour Court which had passed the final order on 25-4-1981 be joined as a respondent and petitions be amended. This request was allowed by the High Court. In the meantime, the High Court vide its order, dated 23-9-1981 had confirmed the stay order to the extent that the respondents will not be re-instated in the service subject to deposit of their back benefits and current wages every six months. The said writ petitions were finally decided on 5-4- 1983 and it was held that as against the order of the Labour Court, dated 25-4-1981 right of appeal is provided the appellants should exercise their rights and file appeals and in the meantime the stay order will continue subject to the condition provided thereof. The High Court also condoned the delay in filing the appeals against the order passed by the Labour Court on 25-4-1981.
7. 1 have heard the learned counsel, Mr. "uhammad Ashraf Khan for the appellants and Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi for the respondents. It is argued by the Advocate for the appellants that the written statement of the appellants were already in the case files and there was no question for asking the appellants file their written statements on 25-4-1984. On 25-4-1981, the learned Labour Court should have proceeded with the cases if it was not inclined to grant the adjournment. The pleadings of the parties were already before the Labour Court and the respondents should have led their evidence. Instead of recording the evidence of Iqbal Mujeed and Khursheed Farooq, the learned Labour Court had passed the impugned order which was not warranted.
8. At this stage of the arguments, both the counsel conceded that the cases be remanded to the Labour Court No.VII at Sukkur for recording the evidence and deciding the same on merit. This request by the two Advocates is the only proper request and the cases be decided on merit by the Labour Court concerned. In the result, I set aside the order of the Labour Court, dated 25-4-1981, and order the remand of these two cases to it for deciding them on merit. However, these are very old matters, therefore, they be decided within a period of three months.