' MUHAMMAD ZAMAN QURESHI (CHAIRMAN).---The brief facts as stated in his petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by Syed Qaisar Agha Kazmi, respondent are that he was appointed as Auditor in the year, 1975 and was a permanent workman. He was founder member of Pakistan People's Party and remained active to watch the interests of the party in the department. He was also a member of T & T Employees Union and active in its affairs. It was further stated that Martial Law was imposed in 1977 and the authorities instituted criminal cases against the respondent and his family. He left the country in June/July, 1978. After staying outside, the respondent came back to Pakistan after a few years. He went to office for duty but was informed that his services had been dispensed with. It was further mentioned in the petition that in the year, 1988, P.P.P. Government was again formed and a Review Board was constituted. The respondent filed a review petition and a notice was sent to him for appearance on 26-2-1990. He appeared and the Review Board announced the order in the last week of April, 1990 reinstating him in service.
He approached the Management but was informed that on receipt of the said order, he will be given duty. He waited for some time and again approached the Management repeatedly but without any success. It is prayed in the petition that the Management be directed to reinstate the respondent in service with back benefits.
2. Notice of the petition was issued to the appellants. Reply was filed and the case was put for arguments. Vide order dated 26-4-1997 the Single Bench of this Commission accepted the petition and directed the Management to reinstate the respondent in service with back benefits. The Management has come in appeal against that decision.
3. Arguments of both the parties were heard at full length. The counsel for the appellant contended that after appellant had filed paradise comments, the case was thereafter assigned to different Benches and lastly to Agha Saleem Khurshid, Member by the then Chairman. He adjourned the case to 10-4-1997. No date was thereafter fixed and the matter was decided on 26-4-1997. The decision was also not conveyed to the appellants. The appellants came to know about the announcement of the order on 10-6-1997. Immediately, an application was filed for obtaining certified copy which was supplied on 11-6-1997. On the same date, the appeal was filed without any delay.
4. The counsel for the appellants further argued that the respondent was not a workman but a civil servant and as such N.I.R.C. Had no jurisdiction in the matter. To that effect he relied on PLD 1997 SC-351. He further submitted that the respondent had remained absent unauthorized for more than 10 years and was removed after observing departmental formalities. It was not a case of unfair labour practice and no evidence to that effect was recorded or produced. As such the impugned order was not maintainable.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants further added that the Review Board had not made any recommendations for re-employment/reinstatement of the respondent. The Single Bench wrongly presumed the respondent had been reinstated and decided the matter on presumption. His concluding submissions were that the impugned order being void and without jurisdiction, no limitation would run against the appellants.
6. Respondent's Counsel repelled the arguments by urging that the appeal was not maintainable, as it was barred by time. He also urged that the respondent was removed from service without observing the formalities of charge-sheet, enquiry, show-cause notice and as such the removal was illegal and had been rightly set aside by the Single Bench, as the respondent had been victimised on account of his lawful trade union activities which amounted to unfair practice.
7. We have gone through the record and read the impugned order carefully in the light of the arguments advanced before us and find that admittedly the respondent was removed from service for unauthorized absence in the years, 1978. Respondent himself stated in his petition that he left the country due to political reasons in June, July, 1978 and came back after few years. There is no mention in his petition that he had left the country with permission of the department or after sanction of leave. The absence from duty without permission is, therefore, an admitted fact. There is also no document on record to show that the Review Board had made recommendations to the Ministry or other. Authorities for reemployment/reinstatement of the respondent. In the absence of such document, it could not be presumed that the Review Board had reinstated the respondent.
The Counsel for the respondent could not rebut the arguments of the Counsel for the appellants that the petition was filed before the N.I.R.C. After a lapse of about 16 years of his removal from service. The petition was, therefore, highly belated and suffered from serious laches. It is also a matter of fact that the respondent was employed as an Auditor in the T & T Department at the time of his removal from service and he was, therefore, a civil servant, as per dictum laid down by Supreme Court of Pakistan in PLD 1996 SC 222 = 1996 PLC (C.S.) 545. The N.I.R.C. Had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter because the termination of the respondent being one of the terms and conditions of service, remedy available to him was before the Federal Services Tribunal.
Unauthorized absence from duty, by no stretch of imagination, could be termed as unfair labour practice. It is further noted from the perusal of the order sheet that after notice to the appellants of the petition and soliciting reply thereto by the then Member Agha Salim .Khurshid, the case was sent by him to the then Chairman for hearing. He adjourned the case for arguments to 18-12-1995 on 5-11-1995. On 7-12-1995, the case was assigned to Mr. Sajjad Hussain Bhatti, the then Member, N.I.R.C., who returned the case to the Chairman on the same date. The case was taken up by the Chairman on 9-1-1996 and adjourned for arguments to 12-3-1996 and again to 12-5-1996. The case was again assigned to Mr. Agha Salim Khurshid, Member, N.I.R:C. On 24-4-1996. On 12-5-1996, Agha Salim Khurshid, Member directed that the notice be issued to the parties for 14-5-1996. However, on 14-5-1996, he again returned the case to the Chairman for transferring the case to some other appropriate Bench. On 16-6-1996, the Chairman posted the case for hearing to 24-6-1996. The case was next adjourned to 7-7-1996. The case was thereafter taken up by the Chairman for hearing on 19-1-1997. In the absence of the respondent he adjourned the case for 17-3-1997 for respondent's appearance and arguments. On 12-3-1997, the case was assigned by the Chairman, to Agha Salim Khurshid, Member. He took up the matter in the absence of the parties on 1-4-1997 and adjourned it to 10-4-1997. The impugned judgment was thereafter announced on 26-4-1997. It is, therefore, quite clear from the record that the case was decided in highly slipshod manner. The plea of the appellants that they got the knowledge of the impugned order on 10-6-1997, whereafter they applied for the copy, which was supplied to them on 11-6-1997 and the appeal was filed on the same day, appears to be quite plausible. The objection taken up by the counsel for the respondent that the appeal is time-barred, appears on the face of record to be untenable.
8. For the reasons discussed above, we are inclined to accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 26-4-1997 with no order as to costs.