JUDGMENT MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.- Facts giving rise to C.M.No. 1683 of 1989 and C.M.No. 1684 of 1989 are that respondent No.3, Tariq Pervaiz, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, was serving as an Assistant in a Branch of petitioner No.1, National Bank of Pakistan, when he was removed from service. Order of his removal from service was assailed by him before a Labour Court by filing grievance application. In that application, besides petitioner No.1, petitiones Nos.2 and 3, namely, Senior Executive Vice-President, National Bank of Pakistan, Head Office, Chundrigar Road, Karachi, and President, National Bank of Pakistan, Head Office, I.I. Chundrigarh Road, Karachi, were impleaded as respondents. The application was accepted and the impugned . Back benefits were also allowed to the respondent.
Order of the Labour Court was challenged by the petitioners, by means of an appeal, before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of that appeal, the petitioners also filed Writ Petition No.2467 of 1984 against the order of the learned Labour Court. While deciding the appeal, the learned Labour Appellatte Tribunal agreed to the re-instatement of the respondent without allowing him back benefits. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 1106 of 1985 which was still pending when it was decided by a learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2467 of 1984 and other connected writ petitions that a Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain grievance application filed by an employee of the National Bank of Pakistan. In view of the above decision of the learned Division Bench Writ Petition No.1106 of 1985 was withdrawn by the petitioners. The said judgment of the learned Division Bench was challenged before the Supreme Court with success. It was held by the Supreme Court on 15th April, 1987 that a Labour Court has the jurisdiction to hear grievance application of the said employee.
2. After the above decision of the Supreme Court, the petitioners filed another writ petition, namely, Writ Petition No.5135 of 1987 which was dismissed on 14th August, 1988, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioners had earlier withdrawn their Writ Petition No.1106 of 1985. Judgment in this regard was assailed by the petitioners before the Supreme Court by means of a Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal, namely, C.P.S.LA. No.610 of 1988. The Supreme Court disposed of the said petition with the following order:- "After some discussion learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will move the High Court for revival of Writ Petition 1106/85, and accordingly does not press this petition, Disposed of accordingly."
The petitioners then moved C.M.No.1863 of 1989 for revival of Writ Petition No.1106 of 1985. They also made C.M.No. 1684 of 1989 for condonation of delay in making C.M.No. 1683 of 1989.
3. It was contended by learned counsel for the respondent that C.M.No. 1683 .Of 1989, for restoration of Writ Petition No.1106 of 1985, suffered from the defect of laches. In reply, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitiners withdrew the said writ petition in view of the afore-mentioned judgment of the learned Division Bench and that when the said judgment was set aside by the Supreme Court, the petitioners moved, with utmost diligence, to make use of the verdict of the Supreme Court. He maintained that it was an eminently fit case for condonation of delay, if any, in the light of principles of sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
4. As indicated above, C.M.No.1684 of 1989 has been made by the petitioners for condonation of delay. It has been noted that the petitioners withdrew Writ Petition No.1106/85 in pursuance of the decision of the learned Division Bench but when that decision did not find favour with the Supreme Court they filed another writ petition namely, Writ Petition No.5135 of 1987 and on the dismissal thereof, on the ground of withdrawal of Writ Petition No.1106/85, by them, they approached the Supreme Court with C.P.S.LA. No.610 of 1988 for redress. According to paragraph 4 of C.M.No. 1683 of 1989, the petitiones were advised by the Supreme Court to seek revival of Writ Petition No.1106/85 and thereupon they withdrew their said C.P.S.LA. From the Supreme Court. It was submitted by him that if the Supreme Court had been of the opinion that revival of Writ Petition No.1106/85 was not possible, the Supreme Court would not have allowed the petitioners to withdraw their C.P.S.L.A.
5. In view of what has gone above, we feel that whatever delay is there on the part of the petitioners it has occurred due to circumstances beyond their control and that they were pursuing the matter in good faith and with due diligence throughout. We are, therefore, not inclined to refuse restoration of Writ Petition No.1106/85 on the ground of laches.
6. It was not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent that Writ Petition No.1106/85 could be restored. The only objection raised , by learned counsel for the respondent against restoration of the said writ petition was that of laches which has been repelled as aforesaid. Writ Petition No.1106 of 1985 is, therefore, restored to its original number. C.M.No. 1683 and C.M. No.1684 of 1989 are disposed of accordingly.
7. Since matters like Writ Petition No.1106 of 1985 are presently heard by single Benches, the said writ petition shall now be fixed before a single Bench for motion hearing, as soon as possible.