DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dated 3-1-1990, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was an employee of the Karachi Port Trust. On 28-11- 1981 he was charge-sheeted for certain acts of misconduct, and after holding the domestic enquiry, the appellant was removed from service. He filed a departmental appeal and thereafter filed appeal in Federal Services Tribunal, which was disposed of on 16-6-1986 as redundant. On 4- 2-1989 he filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court. The respondents resisted the grievance petition on the ground that it was time-barred and that the charges were duly proved in the domestic enquiry.
3. I have heard Mr. Ch. Latif Saghar, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Qamrul Islam Abbas, Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
4. It appears, that there were some doubts as to whether the employees of K.P.T. Were the civil servants as defined under the Civil Services Tribunal Act, 1973 and could file appeal against the termination of their services before the Services Tribunal or they could file grievance application before the Labour' Court. It is not disputed that section 5 of the Ordinance XIII of 1973 declared that the service of Corporation to be the service of Pakistan and every person hi Corporation service would be deemed to be a civil servant for the purpose of the Services Tribunal Act, 1973. In case of Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Abdul Ghani, reported in 1983 SCMR 769, their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan declared that remedy of individual worker under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was available to the K.P.T. Employees. However, their Lordships did not consider the impact of the aforementioned Ordinance XIII of 1973 as this issue was not raised before their Lordships. In the case of Farid Ahmed v. Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Limited and another, reported in PLD 1983 Kar. 576, the learned Division Bench of the Sindh High Court. Held that the persons in the service of a Corporation by virtue of the aforesaid Ordinance were persons in service of Pakistan and the provisions of Services Tribunal Act were applicable to them and that their remedy by Constitutional Petition was barred. It also appears that Federal Services Tribunal in various cases had held that it had no jurisdiction in cases of workmen of corporation and appeals were filed against the decision of Services Tribunal before the Supreme Court.
5. When the case of the appellant was argued before the Services Tribunal, the counsel of the appellant conceded that actually he was in favour of the Tribunal's earlier view that in cases of employees of the A.D.B P. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction, as they were not civil servants within the meaning of the Services Tribunals Act, 1973. He further conceded that the appeal of the appellant was incompetent but prayed for adjournment, as the appellant had gone in appeal from the order of the Sindh High Court to the Supreme Court and that the decision was expected in a few months.
It appears, that either no appeal was filed in Farid's case against the order of Sindh High Court, or if any appeal was filed, the learned counsel for the parties are unaware of the decision. However, in the meantime appeals filed against the orders of the Services Tribunal, in certain cases of the corporations were decided by their Lordships of Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mehdi Khan and others v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others, reported in 1989 SCMR 345. Their Lordships therein referred to the decision of the Sindh High Court in the case of Farid Ahmed v.
Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works and came to the conclusion, that the provisions of the aforesaid Ordinance of 1973 had limited application and was applicable to the cases of the employees who were appointed or promoted between the first day of January, 1972 and the fifth day of July, 1977 and who were removed from service under section 3 of the Ordinance as only they were declared to be in service of Pakistan and would be deemed to be civil servants for the purpose of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. It was further held that under Service Tribunals Act they were not civil servants, if removed for having committed some violation of law or regulation governing terms and conditions of their employment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the decision of the Services Tribunal holding that it had no jurisdiction in cases of such I employees of corporation.
6. Mr. Latif Saghar, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant did not file grievance petition but was waiting of the decision of the Supreme Court which was reported in February part of 1989 SCMR. These appeals were decided on 23rd October, 1988 of which the appellant had no knowledge.
7. The Services Tribunal had already given its decision that it had no jurisdiction over the cases of employees of Corporation who were removed for violation of regulation or law governing their terms and conditions of service. The learned counsel for the appellant in fact agreed with the view of Services Tribunal and conceded, that appeal was in competent and that he had filed appeal in the Services Tribunal by way of abundant caution but prayed that the appeal be revived if the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the view of the Services Tribunal.
8. Ch. Latif Saghar, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was not informed of the decision by the Services Tribunal, though the Services Tribunal in its order had directed that parties be informed. The order was passed in 1986 in the presence of the Counsel for the appellant.
Unless otherwise proved the presumption would be that the Services Tribunal would have informed the parties. The assertion of the appellant after three years, that he was not informed does not have much weight specially in view of the fact, that his counsel was present at the time of decision.
It is the duty of the parties to pursue their case and ascertain its progress either from the Court or from their counsel. The party can't sleep over fate of the case for three years. In view of the submissions of his counsel before the Services Tribunal, it is unlikely that the counsel would have not advised the appellant to pursue alternate remedy before the Labour Court. The appellant had not filed any appeal against the order of the Services Tribunal. Mr.Ch.Latif Saghar submits that the order was not the final order, as the appeal was disposed of as redundant subject to revival, in the case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held otherwise. The appeal was for all the purposes finally decided and it was not pending before the Services Tribunal. In my opinion there is inordinate delay in pursuing the remedy before the learned Labour Court which delay is not satisfactorily explained.
Mr. Ch. Latif Saghar, relied upon certain authorities under which the delay caused due to pursuing remedy in wrong forum was condoned. These authorities may apply to delay upto 16-6-1986, but thereafter the appellant was not pursuing the remedy before any forum but was only waiting for the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in some other cases. The delay for nearly three years remains unexplained and cannot be condoned.
9. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.