' MUHAMMAD ZAMAN QURESHI (CHAIRMAN).---The National Bank of Pakistan through its President has come up in appeal against the decision dated 16-4-1996 recorded by the Single Bench of this Commission whereby the application against the non-implementation of the orders of the Review Board regarding reinstatement in service of M. Maqsood Elahi, Ex-Officer of the Bank, was accepted.
2. Briefly stated, .The facts of the case are that Maqsood Elahi respondent (petitioner before the Single Bench) claiming to be a permanent employee with twenty-two years' service was dismissed by order dated 13-3-1980. According to him, it was a case of political victimization by Munir Ahmad, the then Executive Vice-President of the Bank. He was falsely involved in Wanda Bank Libya fraud case; named in 19 F.I.Rs, and dismissed from service for unauthorized absence. It was mentioned in the application that he remained in judicial lock-up for five years in the Martial Law Regime. He was acquitted by a Special Military Court vide order dated 21-3-1985; the Pakistan Banking Council decided to withdraw all remaining cases. Accordingly, Special Court (Bank Offences) discharged the respondent/petitioner in those cases on 8-6-1994. The petitioner, thus, stood exonerated in all criminal cases. It was further submitted that the respondent/petitioner filed Writ Petition No, 5242/S of 1987 challenging the dismissal but an alternate remedy became available and, therefore",' he moved a petition before the Review Board constituted by the President of Pakistan, on 28-5-1989.
Writ petition was withdrawn and the Review Board decided the case in his favor and directed reinstatement in service. The respondent/petitioner approached the appellant/respondent Bank and various Government Departments for the implementation of the said order, but without success. The respondent/petitioner once again was obliged to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court through Writ Petition No, 6715/S of 1990 which is pending adjudication. The respondent/petitioner, however, averred in his application that his case was politically motivated for his close association with the Pakistan People's Party; the petitioner was heartened to learn from Press report that the Government was determined to settle such pending cases without delay; that prompted him to file a petition before the National Industrial Relations Commission. The prayer made was that the appellant/respondent bank be directed to implement the order of the Review Board and reinstate the respondent/petitioner in service with full back benefits and seniority.
3. The National' Bank of Pakistan filed written reply wherein legal objections with regard to the non- maintainability of the application, jurisdiction of the Commission to hear the petition and similar other points were raised and it was specifically stated that the recommendations made by the Review Board were not accepted by the Federal Government.
4. On the basis of the record and after hearing the arguments advanced by the parties, the Single Bench of the Commission vide order dated 16-4-1996, accepted the application' and directed the appellants to reinstate the respondent in service as per recommendations/orders of the Review Board, against which the present appeal has been filed.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the respondent filed an application on 23-1- 1995 against the non-implementation of N.I.R.C. Orders of 1990 which never existed. As such, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and lawful authority. It was next contended that the respondent was dismissed, according to his own showing, for unauthorized absence and there was no element of unfair labour practice involved. Consequently, the N.I.R.C. Did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application and to record the impugned decision. The next contention raised was that the National Industrial Relations Commission had no jurisdiction and authority under the law to implement the recommendations made by the Review Board constituted by the President of Pakistan through a Notification dated 20-5-1989. The impugned order on that score alone is without lawful authority. It was further added by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent made an application on 28-5-1989 before the Review Board, which was constituted vide Notification dated 20-5-1989 by the President of Pakistan where the remedy was available to only those employees of an industrial or commercial establishment who were removed or dismissed from employment under the Martial Law Regulations or as a result of conviction by a Summary Military Court or otherwise purely on political grounds, as the case may be. The Review Board made recommendations to the Government but no orders were thereafter issued by the Government to the appellant for implementation of those recommendations. As such, the Federal Government which had not accepted the recommendation of the Review Board, was a necessary party which was not impleaded and on that score also, the petition filed by the respondent before the Single Bench of the Commission was liable to dismissal. Reliance was placed on PLD 1983 SC
130. The other limb of argument was that the N.I.R.C. Is a statutory body while the Review Board was constituted under a notification and its decisions were of recommendatory nature only of a Committee and not binding unless directed by the competent Authority, viz. The Federal Government. In the absence of such directions, the N.I.R.C. Had no lawful authority to order implementation of the order of the Review Board. It was next contended that the recommendations were made, as per averments of the respondent, in 1990 and an application for implementation of those recommendations was made before the N.I.R.C. In 1995, after a lapse of five years. The application was not maintainable being highly belated. This aspect of the case was not properly considered and decided and the impugned order on that score also was not maintainable. The next contention raised was that as Writ Petition No, 6715/S of 1990 is already pending adjudication in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, the application filed before the Commission for implementation of the recommendations of the Review Board, was not maintainable. This important feature of the case has not at all been considered by the Single Bench. Lastly, it was argued that the Single Bench decided the matter without recording any evidence.
6. Repelling the arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the latter was dismissed for unauthorised absence without any charge-sheet or show-cause notice. It was not stated in the written statement that the respondent had absconded from duty; rather it was averred that he was involved in criminal cases. No material was placed on record to that effect. He further submitted that the first writ petition was withdrawn to avail the alternate remedy of review before the Review Board which had become available after the filing of the writ petition. The second writ petition is pending on the same point. The recommendations of the Review Board had binding force. A discrimination was made in the case of the respondent only while the recommendations of the Review Board made in other cases were implemented. The next submission made by the counsel for the respondent was that respondent was exonerated from nineteen cases which were falsely made against him. It was next argued that as the recommendation had a binding force, it was pot necessary to implead the Federal Government as a party in the application made by the respondent before the National Industrial Relations Commission for implementation of the orders of the Review Board, passed in exercise of the powers, conferred vide Notification dated 20-5-1989 and not under the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
7. We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. It is an admitted position between the parties that the respondent was dismissed from service on 13-3-1980. Firstly, he filed Writ Petition No,5242/S of 1987 which was withdrawn. Thereafter, respondent filed an application for review before the Review Board on 28-5- 1989. Thereafter, he again filed Writ Petition No,6715/S of 1990 which is still pending adjudication in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. According to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent and as is apparent from the application filed before Rana Shaukat Mahmood, Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission, Camp Lahore, it was not an application under the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 but was an application against the non- implementation of N.I.R.C. Orders of 1990. The orders of 1990, which are alleged to be the orders of the N.I.R.C. In the application, are in fact the recommendations made by the Review Board to the Federal Government (Ministry of Finance) to direct the management of the National Bank of Pakistan to reinstate the petitioner. There is no document on the record to show that those recommendations were accepted or the appellant Bank was advised or directed to reinstate the petitioner. The recommendations made by the Review Board, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated as N.I.R.C. Orders of 1990 because the National Industrial Relations Commission is constituted under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 whereas the Review Board was established by a Notification dated 20-5-1989 issued by the President of Pakistan which consisted of the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission as Chairman, Syed Rizwan Haider, Central Labour Advisor, Labour Division and a representative of the administrative Ministry responsible for the administration of the establishment to which the employee belongs as members. Hence the application for implementation of the N.I.R.C. Orders was misconceived in law and the Single Bench of this Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application and adjudicate into the matter. The recommendations of the Review Board were not sent to the appellants for implementation by the Federal Government (Ministry of Finance) and, therefore, those were not automatically binding on the appellants as erroneously held in the impugned order.
This Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate in any matter unless it is based on the allegations of unfair labour practice as per dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the reported case PLD 1988 SC 53. It is further noticed that respondent has already availed the remedy of writ petition before the High Court, which is still pending. The application made before the Single Bench was not maintainable in that view of the matter. The application was filed after a lapse of five years and the doctrine of laches is fully applicable in his case. In another case also, the Full Bench of this Commission has already held that the Commission is not the executing Court of the recommendations made by the Review Board. Looking from all the above angles, the impugned order dated 16-4-1996 recorded by the Single Bench of this Commission is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
8. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order dated 16-4-1996 recorded by the Single Bench of this Commission is set aside and the application filed by the respondent is dismissed with no order as to cost.