' The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has prayed for that the order dated 16-3-1986 of respondent No, 1 is without lawful authority.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was working as a Guard under the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and was dismissed from service vide order dated 14-3-1982. The petitioner impugned this order of dismissal through grievance petition in the Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan. The respondents contested this petition. The learned Labour Court after recording necessary evidence and hearing the parties proceeded to partly allow the petition vide order dated 4-11-1984. The result was that the petitioner was reinstated in service without back benefits. The respondents Nos. 2 to 4 impugned this order through an appeal before respondent No, 1, who accepted the appeal vide order dated 16-3-1986. The petitioner has now assailed this order through this Constitutional petition.
3. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents Nos. 2 to 4 appeared and contested the petition while respondent No, 1 was proceeded ex parte. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has argued that although the learned respondent No, 1 upheld the order of reinstatement passed by Labour Court yet accepted the appeal on the short ground that the Bank employees could not maintain a grievance petition in view of the decision of this Court reported as 1985 PLC 1053. It is submitted that this judgment of High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court in the case of Iftikhar Ahmad and others v. President, National Bank of Pakistan and others PLD 1988 SC 53. It is further submitted that this way the basis of order of learned respondent No, 1 has disappeared.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 4 has argued that the petition is barred by gross laches. It is submitted that the order of Tribunal is dated 16-3-1986 while the present petition was filed in this Court on 27-1-1988, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
The learned counsel in this behalf has referred to the cases reported as 1985 SCM R 1003 and 1980 SCM R 711.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submitted that the petitioner moved an application before N.I.R.C. On 20-4-1984, immediately after the acceptance of the appeal of the Bank by respondent No, 1, for redress of his grievance. This petition was dismissed by the N.I.R.C.
Vide order dated 19-1-1988. In the meanwhile, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared that the Bank employees covered by the definition of 'worker', can maintain grievance petition. This judgment was reported in the January issue of Pakistan Legal Decision. Soon thereafter the petitioner filed this writ petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as precedent cases. The admitted position on record is that the respondent No, 1 upheld the finding of the Labour Court on merits but the appeal of the Bank was allowed in view of the legal decision of this Court that Bank employees cannot maintain a grievance petition. The petitioner thereafter petitioned to N.I.R.C. For redress of his grievance but that effort also proved futile, therefore, this petition does not suffer from lathes.
7. The basis of the acceptance of the appeal of the Bank by respondent No, 1 has disappeared with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Iftikhar Ahmad and others, therefore, the last portion of the judgment of the respondent No, 1 cannot be upheld. The petitioner is not aggrieved by the earlier portion of the judgment as to the decision on merits.
8. The upshot of this discussion is that I respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Iftikhar Ahmad and others allow this petition and set aside the judgment of respondent No,
1. The result is that the judgment of the Labour Court dated 4-11-1984 is restored.
There is no order as to costs.