MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN (MEMBER).---The appellant is aggrieved by order, dated 8-8-1993 whereby he was dismissed form service consequent upon the disciplinary proceedings. He challenged the dismissal order before the Labour Court but without success. His appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal also did not succeed which was dismissed on 13-10-1993. The appellant, thereafter, filed a Constitutional Petition in 1995 which is still pending before the learned Single High Court. In the meanwhile the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, was amended and the employees of autonomous bodies have been declared to be civil servants and in view of such amendment, read with section 6 of the Act and Article 212 of the Constitution, the appellant has filed the present appeal presuming the proceedings pending before 'the High Court as abated by operation of law.
2. Without touching the merits of the case, we have listened to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant at the preliminary stage of hearing specifically on the point of maintainability. The learned counsel is of the view that since the Constitution Petition was a continuation of the earlier proceedings and in view of Article 212 read with section 6 of the Act all the proceedings before any Court, regarding the service matters of the Civil servants, stand abated with the establishment of an Administrative Tribunal.
3. The question of retrospective application and that of abatement of normal proceedings has already been discussed in a number of judgments of this Tribunal, and more specifically by larger Benches thereof. But the abatement of a Constitutional Petition filed after exhausting the normal legal remedies has not been discussed earlier. Therefore, irrespective of the fact whether the amendment will be applicable retrospectively for the abatement of cases, here in a unique point that whether a new avenue will be opened in the shape of Service Tribunal to those employees of autonomous bodies and statutory Corporations who have already exhausted their normal remedies. Even if it is presumed that the amendment Act of 1997 was operative retrospectively and all the matters pending before any other forum were to abate with an opportunity to the aggrieved person to file a service appeal before this Tribunal within 90 days of the establishment of such a Tribunal, even then the cases like the present one shall have to be examined differently. The workers under the I.R.O. were provided a forum in the shape of Labour Courts for the redressed of their grievances based on unfair labour practices, misuse of authority and violation of the service agreements, regulations of the department or the statutory orders in the form of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance. The Labour Courts of Inquiry on facts were duly empowered to adjudicate upon the merits of the case even by recording the detailed evidence and summoning of record. The decisions of the Labour Courts were to be further scrutinized by the appellate forum in the form of Labour Appellate Tribunals comprising of, and having the status of the Judges of the High Courts. The Labour Appellate Tribunal was legally considered to be the last Court of appeal on facts and legal issues. Thus, with the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal the remedies available to a workman under the normal law stands exhausted. Although, as stated earlier, the view of the Tribunal is that the amendment incorporated' on 10-6-1997 is not retrospective in effect. Section 6 of the Original Act of 1973 was applicable only to the civil servants whose cases were pending before the various Courts prior to the introduction of latest Constitutional concept of Administrative Courts and Tribunals in 1973.
Thus, the matters of such civil servants pending before the various Courts were held to abate by the Constitution and the Act. However, the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court were not to abate. Thus, here also we reiterate that the employees of the statutory Corporations, having been declared as civil servants by a fiction of law, could not be deemed to be in the service of Pakistan prior to 10-6-1997 and hence, the cases pending in any Court were to continue to the normal conclusions. However, as stated earlier, for the sake of discussion if it is supposed that the Act, 1997 was also retrospective, the question is whether the Constitutional Petitions filed after the conclusion of the legal remedies will also be affected.
4. There was a justification and spirit in the logic of Article 212(2) of the Constitution and section 6- of the Service Tribunals Act, that any suit, appeal or application of a civil servant pending for adjudication before any Court or Tribunal and to which the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal extends shall abate on the establishment of such Service Tribunal and anybody aggrieved by such order of abatement will be provided a remedy aggrieved by such order of 'abetment will be provided a remedy by way of service appeal. However, this has to be read with preamble of Service Tribunals Act and the spirit of Article 199 of the Constitution. The Service Tribunals can adjudicate upon the violation of vested terms and conditions of a civil servant and thus being the Tribunal of exclusion nature, the proceedings before any other Court may be unjustified being of parallel nature and, therefore, the said provisions of the Constitution and the law provided for the concept of abatement of such cases so that all the matters should concentrate on one focal paint. Hence, any suit, first appeal, second appeal, application for review, applications for execution proceedings in connection with the execution of decree, application for revision, etc. and similar other proceedings whereby the terms and conditions of a civil servant were to be adjudicated or to be executed were held to abate so as to provide an opportunity for the reference of such matters to the specialized institution. However, if any suit or appeal or other proceedings with regard to the adjudication of the terms and conditions has been filed and finally adjudicated upon, such an issue could not be reopened even before the Service Tribunal established in 1973 for the civil servants. Closed matters could not be revived practically in accordance with section 11, of the C.P.C. on the principles of res judicata.
5. Analyzing the present situation, in the light of the above discussion we are of the view that the normal remedy available to the appellant under the Labor Laws stood exhausted with the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and thus the issue with regard to the adjudication of the terms and conditions of service etc. attained finality. Constitutional Petitions are a sort of extraordinary remedies to watch the proper exercise of authority vested in a functionary of the State. That is wt.' ...he main respondent in the Constitutional Petition is not the Respondents-Department or the Corporation but the Labour Appellate Tribunal has been arrayed as the Respondent No,1 and the adjudication of the case by such a Tribunal has been challenged under Article 199 of the Constitution. High Court has the Constitutional authority to sit in appeal against the exercise of authority/judgment of a functionary, including the Labour Appellate Tribunal but by any stretch of interpretation, this Tribunal, specifically constituted for the protection of the terms and conditions of civil servants, can neither entertain nor adjudicate upon the exercise of authority by another statutory Tribunal of the status of the High Court. Thus, Article 212(2), of the Constitution and section 6 of the Service Tribunal Act cannot at all be interpreted to vest this Tribunal with any other authority beyond the limits provided by the said Article 212(1), of the Constitution and the preamble of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and in such a situation the Constitutional Petition directed against the judgment of the Labour Appellate Tribunal can never abate and such matters cannot be brought to this Tribunal as the main issue has already been adjudicated upon regarding the original impugned order and, therefore, it has become res judicata. Thus, the proceedings pending before the High Court against the proper exercise or otherwise of the jurisdiction by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, being the extraordinary remedy, could not be deemed to abate and, consequently, the present appeal is misconceived.
6. As a result of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed in limine.