' ALLAHDINO G. MEMON, J.---We propose to decide the above petitions by this common judgment as identical question of fact and law is involved in all the petitions.
' The brief facts giving rise to the above petitions are:-
1. In C.P. No, 419 of 1987, petitioner Muhammad Hussain was working as conductor and was permanent employee of respondent No,
1. He was dismissed from service on 26-7-1984. The petitioner filed grievance petition against respondent No, .1 after serving grievance notice on him, before the 1st Sindh Labour Court at Karachi (respondent No, 3) under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, somewhere in September, 1984. The learned respondent No,3 after recording the necessary evidence and hearing the parties allowed the application of the petitioner and passed an order directing reinstatement of the petitioner in service with full back benefits vide order dated 30-9-1985, the petitioner was reinstated in service in the month of October/November, 1985. However, regarding back benefits he was given to understand that the matter has been referred to higher authority for sanction as alleged by him.
That he sent a letter dated 30-12-1986, and legal notice dated 12-2-1987, to the respondent No,1 but the same were not replied to. However, ultimately, the petitioner came to know that the respondent No,1 had obtained some orders in respect of back benefits from Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi, on 19-1-1986, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No,1 was dismissed in limine, but the relief regarding back benefits, allowed by the Labour Court, was refused.
2. In C.P. No,420/1987, petitioner Mumtaz Ali was a permanent employee of respondent No,1 and was working as a conductor in Transport Corporation Ltd. North Karachi Depot at Karachi. He was dismissed from services on 24-4-1983. However, after service of grievance notice, he filed grievance petition against the respondent No,1 in the first Sindh Labour Court at Karachi, (respondent No,3) under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which was allowed on 30-9-1985 after recording the evidence and hearing the parties. By the above order, the respondent No,1 was directed to reinstate the petitioner and to pay back benefits. In compliance with the above order, the petitioner was re-instated but he was not paid the back benefits and therefore, he sent a letter dated 241-1987, and notice dated 12-2-1987 to respondent No,1, to pay and settle dues regarding back benefits and pay the same but to no avail. Later on the petitioner came to know that the respondent No,1 had filed appeal before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal Karachi (respondent No,2) and appeal was dismissed in limine. However, the order was modified regarding back benefits. The present petition has been filed against the above order passed on 19th October, 1985.
3. In C.P.No,421 of 1987 (Gohar Rehman v. District Magistrate) it is the case of the petitioner that he is permanent employee of respondent No,1 and was working as conductor. He was dismissed from service on 10-9-1983 and therefore, the petitioner served grievance notice on respondent, and thereafter, filed the grievance petition before the Ist Sindh Labour Court at Karachi (respondent No,3) under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. That the respondent after recording evidence and hearing the parties directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service with full back benefits vide order dated 30-5-1985. That the petitioner was reinstated, but the order regarding payment of back benefits was not complied with and, therefore, letter dated 13-12-1986 and a legal notice dated 12-2-1986 was sent to respondent No,1 but to no avail. Later on petitioner came to know that the respondent No,1 had filed appeal before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal Karachi (respondent No,2) who was pleased to dismiss the same in limine but the order regarding payment of back benefits was set aside. The present petition has been filed against the said order.
4. In C.P. No,538 of 1987 (Muhammad Dauraz v. District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation Limited); it is the case of the petitioner that he is employee of respondent No,1 and was working as conductor. He was dismissed from service on 16-7-1983 and, therefore, he served grievance notice on respondent No,1, and therefore, filed grievance petition before the 1st Sindh Labour Court Karachi (respondent No,3) under section 25-A of the Sindh Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The respondent No,3 after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, was pleased to allow the said petition and directed that the petitioner be reinstated with full back benefits vide order dated 30-5-1985. In compliance with the above order, the petitioner was reinstated but he was not given back benefits and, therefore, sent a letter dated 6-12-1986 and legal notice dated 12-2-1978 to the respondent No,1 but to no avail. However, the petitioner came to know later on that respondent No,1 had filed appeal before respondent No,2, who was pleased to dismiss the same in limine vide order dated 19th October, 1985 but the order regarding back benefits was set aside.
5. In C.P. No,539 of 1987 (Syed Mushtaq Ali v. District Manager Orangi Nala Depot Karachi and another) it is alleged that the petitioner was a permanant employee of respondent No,1 and was working as conductor. He was dismissed from service on 14-6-1984 and, therefore, he served grievance notice on respondent, thereafter filed grievance petition before Ist Sindh Labour Court at Karachi (respondent No,3) under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The respondent No,3 was pleased to allow the said petition after recording necessary evidence and hearing the parties, and directed the respondent No,1 to reinstate the petitioner in service and to pay back benefits. In compliance with the above order, the petitioner was reinstated but he was not paid the amount of back benefits and, therefore, he sent a letter dated 3-2-1986, and legal notice dated 12-2-1986, asking the respondent No,1 to pay back benefits but to no avail. Later on petitioner came to know that the respondent No,1 had filed appeal before respondent No,2 who was pleased to dismiss the same in limine and order regarding payment of back benefits set aside vide order dated 19-1-1986. The present petition has been filed against the impugned order.
' We have heard Mr. A.R. Mirza, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Naraindas C.
Motiani learned counsel appearing for the respondent No,1, Mr. Dasti, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.2 and 3, and have gone through the record.
' It was contended by Mr. A.R. Mirza, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioners were not served with any notice by the learned respondent No,2 nor they were heard before the order, setting aside the payment of back benefits was set aside and, therefore, the same was illegal, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice, and fundamental rights.
' Mr. Naraindas C. Motiani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No,1 has contended that the petitioner Gohar Rehman and Muhammad Dauraiz, petitioners in petitions Nos.421 and 438 of 1987 were served with notice by the learned respondent No,2, and the order passed by the learned respondent No,2 was legal and justified. He has further contended that the record shows that the appeal in the case of Mushtaq Ali, petitioner in C.P.No,539 of 1987 was heard on 12-2-1986, and he had applied for copy of the order on the same day, which goes a long way to show that he was present and was heard. He has further contended that grant of back benefits to the employee was a matter of discretion which has been rightly exercised by respondent No,2 and, therefore, petitions Nos.421, 438 and 539 of 1987 had no merit, and were liable to be dismissed, However, it was admitted by Mr. Naraindas, C. Motiani that there is nothing on record to show that petitioners in Petition Nos.419 and 420 of 1987 were served with any notice.
' Mr. Dasti, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.2 and 3 did not address the Court.
' We have considered the contentions and have gone through the record. The record of respondent No,2 in C.P.Nos.D-421 and 438 of 1987 shows that petitioner Gohar Rehman and Muhammad Dauraiz were served with notice. The record of the case of petitioner Mushtaq Ali in petition No,D- 539 of 1987 also shows that he had applied for certified copies of the order on same day on which the orders were passed. However, there is nothing on record to show that the learned Appellate Tribunal had directed issuance of any notice to the-petitioners or they were heard before the impugned order was passed. The diary of respondent No,2 as well as impugned orders are silent on this aspect. The orders do not show that any of the petitioner was present and was heard by the learned Appellate Tribunal. There is no doubt that right to be heard before one is subjected to any action adversely affecting ones interest, is the most ancient grund norm of every civilised legal system known to the mankind from times immemorial and is inherent in built constituent of the fundamental principles of natural justice. So much so that even ADAM was not condemned unheard for his having eaten forbidden fruit.
' We are, therefore, of the considered view that the impugned orders were passed against the principles of natural justice and fundamental rights and, therefore, the above petitions were partly allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded back to the learned Appellate Tribunal for deciding the question of back benefits only after hearing the parties.
However, there will be no order as to costs.