DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order, dated 16-10-1990, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,VI at Karachi; whereby the grievance application of the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Barrister Habibur Rehman for the appellant and Mr. Habibur Rehman, learned Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was admittedly serving with the respondents when on 8-12-1988, he was charge-sheeted for having accepted short supply of 191 Reams of white paper with the connivance of the supplier, namely, Messrs Shaukat Paper Mart on 23-10-1988 and on account of , which he was suspended on 3-12-1988 and was served with the show-cause notice on 8-12-1988. In the domestic enquiry, he was found guilty. Vide order, dated 15-10-1989, he was compulsorily retired from service. After serving- grievance notice upon the respondents, the appellant filed grievance application before the learned Labour Court, which was resisted by the respondents on the grounds, that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction as on the date, when the impugned order was passed, the appellant was in the service of Pakistan and was deemed to be a civil servant for the purpose of Services. Tribunals Act, 1973, and secondly that in the domestic enquiry, the charge was proved against the appellant. Both the grounds were accepted by the learned Labour Court and the grievance application was dismissed.
4. It may be pointed that Pakistan , International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956, was amended by Ordinance No,LI1I of 1984, whereby subsections (2), (3) and (4) were added to section 10 of the said Act which provided as under:-- "(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) or any law, settlement or award for the time being in force, or any rules or regulations framed under this Act, or any rules, regulations, orders or instructions issued by the Corporation or in the terms and conditions of service of any person employed by, or serving under, the Corporation, the Corporation may at any time retire or remove from its service any person without assigning any reason, after giving him an opportunity of being heard and not less than ninety days' notice or pay for the period by which such notice falls short of ninety days; and subject to subsection (3), no such order of retirement or removal shall be called in question before any Court or tribunal or other authority.
(3) Service under the Corporation is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan, and every person holding a post under the Corporation, not being a person who is on deputation to the Corporation, shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (LXX of 1973)
(4) Nothing contained in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (W.P. Ordinance No,VI of 1968), or the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969)
(XXIII of 1969), shall apply to or in relation to the Corporation or any of the officers, advisers and employees appointed by it."
5. These subsections were omitted by P.IA.C. Amendment Act, 1989 which was notified in Gazette of Pakistan (Extraordinary), Part I, dated 1-11-1989. Barrister Habibur Rehman for the appellant contends that though the order was passed on 15-10-1989, but, it was served upon the appellant on 15-11-1989 whereas Amendment whereby subsections (2), (3) and (4) of section 10 were omitted had come into force on 1-11-1989. He further contends that on the date of service of the order, the appellant was not a civill servant for the purpose of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and further more subsection (3) of section 10 only provided the forum where the appeal could be filed, which is a procedural provision and did not create any vested right in any of the parties. In the affidavit-in- evidence, in para. 7, the appellant has averred that the letter, dated 15-10-1989 was served upon him on 15-11-1989. This averment has not been challenged in the cross-examination of the appellant. The only witness examined by the respondents is Mr. Muhammad Basit, who, in the cross-examination, has admitted that he did not know when retirement order was served upon the appellant. In view of this evidence, it can safely be assumed that the order of his compulsory retirement was served upon the appellant on 15-11-1989. It will be this date when this order would be effective and would give cause of action to the appellant.
6. What is procedural law has been discussed in Bindra's Interpretation of Statutes, 7th Edition, page 645. The learned author has observed that "the word 'procedure' which is a term used to express 'the mode of proceeding by which a legal right is enforced as distinguished from the law which gives or defines the right, and which by means of the proceedings, the Court is to administer; the machinery as distinguished from the product." In other words the expression 'procedure' means the manner and form of enforcing the law. According to Salmond, the Law of Procedure may be defined as that branch of the law which governs the process of litigation." It is also settled law that procedural law does not create any vested right. The bare reading of the aforesaid subsection (3) of the amending Ordinance, 1984, would show that it provided for the forum and the procedure whereby an aggrieved employee of the Corporation could seek redress of his grievances. Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is a Procedural Law as it provides for the forum and the manner in which the remedy could be secured by the aggrieved civil servant. Similarly, the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 also contain some substantive provisions with regard rights of workman and also lay down the forum and procedure for seeking redress of grievance by workman.
7. In view of the above legal and factual position, the Labour Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the grievance application of the appellant.
8. The learned Labour Court has also disposed of the case on merits. As pointed above, only one witness, Muhammad Basit has been examined in the Court by the respondents, who was also Member of the Enquiry Committee. However, he did not produce enquiry proceedings, which were produced through Mr. Iftikharullah Amin, who was subsequently given up by the respondents. I have gone through the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Witness Irshad Ahmad who was the main witness against the appellant has stated that on checking the consignment, he found approximately 191 reams short. Akhtar Hussain, Stores Supervisor, states that he had confirmed that the shipment was received that day and the quantity of 1000 reams was received from Messrs Shaukat Paper Mart; by witness Malik Saeed. Mr. Muhammad Adil, Manager, Material Support (Commercial) of the respondents has stated in the enquiry that he checked the stock and found that material was 997 reams against 1000 reams recorded in the challan. Thus, the evidence before the. Enquiry Officer did not conclusively disclose that 191 reams were found short in the consignment of 1000 reams delivered by Messrs Shaukat Paper Mart. Malik Saeed, Storekeeper, who received the consignment stated that he checked and confirmed 1000 reams of off-set paper was available at the site. In the cross-examination, he had admitted, that he had verified the quantity and had signed to the correctness of the document. Thus, from the evidence produced before the enquiry officer, it cannot be definitely concluded, that the appellant had accepted the short supply of 191 reams with the connivance of the supplier. Mr. Muhammad Basit witness has also admitted that there was no evidence as to who had done overwriting on the vouchers. As such, there is no evidence on which the appellant could be held guilty of the charges.
9. In view of the above discussions, I am inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and also the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant; and order the reinstatement of the appellant in service with all consequential back benefits. Orders accordingly. Orders to be implemented within two (2) months.