Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that Syed Manzar Abbas, an employee of the petitioner-Company was charge---sheeted for committing theft of one kilogram of Glaxose-D. Precise allegation was that on 20-8-1981 at about 9-15 p.m. When the respondent was leaving the factory premises, a search was made of his Scooter at the gate of the factory by the Security Incharge who recovered a bag containing one kilogram of Glaxose-D from the Scooter. A charge-sheet was accordingly served on the respondent and departmental enquiry initiated against him. Respondent challenged the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him in a grievance petition filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, mainly on the ground that the charge-sheet was time-barred. His precise objection was that although incident allegedly took place on 20-8-1981, charge-sheet dated 16-9-1981 was delivered to him through the Secretary of the Union on 7-10-1981 and as such the charge-sheet being time-barred, disciplinary proceedings could not be taken against him. Prayer made by the respondent employee in his grievance petition was that "the respondent may kindly be directed to drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of show-cause notice No. Misc/537, dated 16-9-1981 and to refrain from imposing penalty of termination/discharge dismissal on the basis of show-cause notice No. Misc/537, dated 16-9-1981".
Petitioner-company resisted the grievance petition by filing a written reply stating therein that the show-cause notice in respect of the alleged occurrence was personally handed over to the respondent on 26-8-1981 on reading which, he had fainted. Notice was then sent to the respondent on 16-9-1981 through registered post at his two known addresses and notice was also published in daily `Nawa-i-Waqt' dated 17-9-r981. Thus, the charge-sheet, according to the petitioner- Company, was served on the respondent within time.
2. Learned Labour Court after recording the evidence led by the parties and on consideration thereof found that the incident of theft was reported to the Management on 23-8-1981 and the contents of the show-cause notice published in daily `Nawa-i-Waqt' dated 17-9-1981 had come to the respondent's knowledge on 22-9-1981. It was further found that the two registered notices sent on known addresses of the respondent would also be presumed to have reached him. Taking this view of the matter, learned Labour Court held that the allegation of theft was made known to the respondent within the statutory period of one month. Grievance petition was accordingly dismissed by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 6-11-1982.
3. Respondent preferred an appeal. Learned Labour Appellate Tribunal erroneously assumed that it was a case of dismissal from service and the appeal before him was directed against the dismissal of the respondent's grievance petition for reinstatement in service. Learned Tribunal, therefore, proceeded to deal with the case on merits and recorded a finding of fact that the charge of stealing the company's property was established against the respondent. However, on the question of charge-sheet, learned Tribunal held that it was time-barred. On this aspect of the matter, fording of the Tribunal was that the charge-sheet dated 26-8-1981 was not delivered to the respondent and the charge-sheet dated 16-9-1981 had come to his knowledge on 22-9-1981 when the period prescribed for serving the charge-sheet had already expired in so far as the petitioner- Company on its own showing had come to know of the misconduct on 21-8-1981. Respondent's appeal was, therefore, accepted and because of the erroneous assumption aforementioned, it was directed that the respondent be reinstated in service.
4. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court through the present Constitutional petition which was admitted to regular hearing and operation of the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal was suspended It appears that owing to suspension of the Tribunal's order, departmental enquiry against the respondent was finalized and his services terminated by order dated 11-8-1985 (Annexure R-1/13) to challenge which the respondent filed a fresh grievance petition. He then moved an application (C.M. No. 2860/85) in this Court praying that since a limited question as to whether the charge-sheet was time-barred or not was involved in the writ petition and as the case was now pending before the Labour Court for adjudication on merits, "it is in the interest of justice that the titled writ petition may be dismissed with directions to the parties to contest the case before the Punjab Labour Court No. 2 on merits". This application after notice to the petitioner came up for hearing on 27-4-1986 when the following order was passed by this Court:-- "On the basis of an interlocutory order, suspending the operation of the order passed by the Tribunal, seemingly, departmental inquiry against the respondent was finalized and as a result thereof he was removed from service. He challenged his removal through a fresh grievance petition. It appears that most of the grounds urged therein are the same as pressed in this writ petition. Accordingly, on behalf of the respondent, it is contended that in view of the pendency of parallel proceedings before the Labour Court, the instant writ petition cannot proceed.
However, the learned counsel for the respondent makes an offer that he has no objection to the sustenance of the finalisation of the inquiry and the consequential order of removal, of course subject to his grievance petition provided the writ petition is declared to have become infructuous.
The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment to seek further instructions. To be refixed."
5.Matter was then fixed for hearing before us on 22-10-1986 when the learned counsel for the respondent reiterated his stand that as the respondent has filed a fresh grievance petition challenging the order of his termination/removal which is still pending and wherein the grievance regarding the charge-sheet being time-barred has been reagitated, this writ petition has become infructuous. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that issue of limitation qua the charge-sheet stood concluded so far as the Labour Tribunals were concerned and as such the writ petition can proceed notwithstanding the fact that a fresh grievance petition has been filed by the respondent against his termination/removal. During the hearing, photo copy of the Appellate Tribunal's order dated 30-9-1986 was produced. This order has been passed on a revision filed by the respondent against the order of the Labour Court refusing to allow him to produce the evidence in support of his fresh grievance petition for the reason that the Tribunal had in his previous decision (impugned in the present writ petition) found that the respondent had committed theft of one kilogram of Glaxose D. Learned Tribunal while allowing the revision petition has observed that although the respondent's earlier grievance petition was directed against the charge-sheet, "it was considered by mistake that the petitioner had been dismissed from service and his grievance petition brought against the dismissal order had been dismissed, therefore, this Court found that commission of theft had been proved against him and his appeal was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service on the ground that the charge-sheet was time--- barred. Since by that time neither any inquiry was held nor any dismissal order had been passed against the petitioner, there was no occasion to direct his reinstatement in service. The observations made by this Court in the said appeal, therefore, have no adverse effect upon the case of the parties. Since now the petitioner has been dismissed from service after holding an inquiry and giving Ending that he had committed theft, he is entitled to challenge the order of his dismissal in his grievance petition and can lead evidence that the factum of the commission of theft has not been established against him".
6. From the afore-quoted order of the learned Tribunal, it was sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the effect of the previous order of the Tribunal impugned in the present petition has been completely washed off and as such writ petition has become infructuous. Submission of the learned counsel does not appear to be wholly correct. The aforementioned order of the Tribunal dated 30-9-1986 has only corrected an obvious error and made it clear that the observation made in his earlier. Order dated 13-6-1984 regarding the commission of theft has no adverse effect upon the case of the parties who are free to lead evidence in the fresh grievance petition on the question of commission of theft. The order is silent about the finding given in the earlier order (impugned in the present petition) regarding the charge-sheet being time-barred. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the direction for reinstatement given in the impugned order was obviously erroneous and it has been so observed/clarified by the learned Tribunal in his order dated 30-9-1986. Even the learned counsel for the respondent did not insist that the respondent was entitled to reinstatement as a result of the impugned order. In fact, he conceded (as is evident from this Court's order dated 27-4-1986 aforequoted) that the respondent having since been removed from service, his reinstatement would depend upon the result of the fresh grievance petition. In these circumstances petitioner is not left with any imminent grievance so as to justify invocation of Constitutional jurisdiction. The grievance petition filed by the respondent against his removal is still pending. It would, therefore, in our view, be not appropriate for this Court to proceed to determine the limited question in this petition viz. Whether the charge-sheet was time-barred or not while the main controversy is pending adjudication before the Labour Court. A Division Bench of this Court held in "Lever Brothers (Pakistan) Ltd. v. N.I.R.C." (PLD 1986 Lah. 90) that when only a limited question is agitated before the High Court while the main case is still pending before the Lower Tribunal, "this Court ought to stay its hands in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction". Piecemeal and fragmentary decisions of causes have also not been favoured by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and even the Privy Council. See "Abdur Rehman v. Haji Mir Ahmad Khan and another" (PLD 1983 SC 21), "Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain" (PLD 1975 SC 457), "Nanheial and another v. Umrao Singh" (AIR 1931 PC 33) and "A.F.
Ferguson & Co. v. Sindh Labour Court" (PLD 1985 SC 429). In the last-mentioned case, it has been observed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court "the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court should not normally be exercised in cases where the entire case will not be completely disposed of". In this view of the matter, we do not find it a fit case for interfering in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction at this stage. It may, however, be observed that as and when the grievance petition of the respondent now pending before the Labour Court is finally decided on merits and if the decision goes against the petitioner and it also fails in appeal, it can approach this Court in Constitutional jurisdiction and at that time, it shall, of course, be open to him also to agitate the question of limitation qua the charge-sheet.
In view of what has been said above, we hold that this petition, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is premature and the same is accordingly dismissed with the observations aforementioned. There shall be no order as to costs.