1. ' This appeal has been preferred by the Bank authorities to impugn the legality of the Judgment dated 24-3-1994 of the learned Labour Court, Malakand Division, Swat whereby the grievance petition filed by respondent No,1 under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 for back benefits from 7-1-1980 to 5-1-1991, was accepted.
2. ' The factual background of the controversy which arose between the parties is that Hazrat Hussain petitioner-respondent No,1 was employed by the appellant Bank in 1976. He remained in service till January 1980 when he was arrested in a criminal case and was confined in jail. During this period an order dated 10-9-1980 was passed by the Bank authorities for termination of services of the respondent. This termination order was challenged before the Labour Court through a grievance petition which was accepted by order dated 5-3-1984 and consequently his reinstatement in service was ordered. The bank called in question the legality of this order before the Labour Appellate Tribunal and while accepting the appeal by the order dated 2-8-1984 the decision of the learned Labour Court was set aside and the grievance petition of the respondent was dismissed.
3. The writ petition moved by the petitioner/respondent against this Judgment was also dismissed on 23-4-1985 . However, the petitioner/respondent ultimately approached the Review Board for his redress which accepted the review in these words "For the above reasons we hold the impugned order dated 10-9-1980 void ab initio and recommend to the Federal Government (Ministry of Finance) to direct the management of H.B.L to reinstate the petitioner? In pursuance of this decision the petitioner was reinstated in service. The petitioner approached the authorities for granting him back benefits and wages from the period he was removed from service till he was reinstated but his request was not conceded.
4. ' He then served the Bank with grievance notice but with no success and hence this grievance petition for the relief as mentioned above. The claim of the petitioner was contested by submission of written statement wherein the allegations levelled in the grievance petition were controverted.
5. ' The petitioner appeared as P.W. 1 in support of his petition and gave details of the dispute almost in the same manner as narrated above while on behalf of the respondent-Bank Mazeed Khan, office of the bank, was examined as R.W. 1 who supported the stand of the bank as put in the written statement.
6. ' During hearing the learned counsel for the respondent had raised a preliminary objection regarding competency of the appeal on the ground that it has not been signed or represented by the appellants themselves. In this context he referred to some case law but the matter stands concluded by a Judgment of a Division Bench of Peshawar High Court in writ petition No,16 of 1986 "Swat Ceramics Company v. Subedar Muhammad Hussain" decided on 13-5-1990 wherein after scrutinising the various provisions of Legal Practitioners Act and the Civil Procedure Code it was held that a grievance petition presented by a legal practitioner would be competent. The same reasons would also apply to appeals as on the strength of the reasons given in that judgment the Advocate engaged by the party can sign and file the appeal on his behalf. There is no dispute that the appeal in this case has been signed by the learned Advocate who was undisputedly engaged by the appellants. In context of competency of appeal the second objection agitated was that the power of attorney has not been signed by the authorities who have allegedly signed it and the main reason for this assertion was that Wakalatnama has been signed in Urdu whereas the bank officers do not sign in Urdu. This is an imaginary argument as the authorities purporting to have signed the said documents have not disowned it. It was next contended that the joint petition under sections 25-A and 51 of the I.R.O. Was not competent. The applicability of Section 51 of the I.R.O. Was excluded on the ground that there was no order of the Labour Court to be executed. This argument overlooks the wording of section 51 of the I.R.O. As in that matter not only the Order of Labour Court but also of the Tribunal can be executed. In any case Section 25-A has also been invoked and the petition does not suffer from any defect on this count. On merits it was contended that the decision of the Review Board has no binding effect as that was only of recommendatory nature. This argument in ultimate analysis would mean that the creation of the Review Board was merely a futile exercise. However, this cannot be so and particularly in this case when the bank did not object to the reinstatement of the respondent as is clear from the following portion of the order of the Review Board "Even otherwise at present the bank does not object to the reinstatement of the petitioner as the petitioner was not allowed any legal recourse nor any prima facie evidence was stated against the petitioner." This decision was even implemented by the bank authorities as the respondent was reinstated in service. Moreover, the matter was not agitated by the appellants in any forum and they felt satisfied with the decision of the Review Board, therefore, they cannot be permitted to raise an objection on this score. The Review Board declared the order of dismissal of respondent from service as void ab initio and that declaration was accepted unconditionally by the appellants as in pursuance of that the respondent was reinstated in service and the matter was not pursued further by the appellants. It has been laid down in 1993 SCM R 105 that when order of dismissal or removal has been set aside unconditionally then back benefits has to be paid.
7. There is no merit in this appeal and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.