' Briefly stated the facts are that Farid Khan, Maskeen Khan respondents Nos,3 and 4 alongwith 21 other drivers were employees of Punjab Road Transport Board and were performing their duties at Sialkot. They were issued charge-sheets for misappropriation of certain amount on account of misuse of Diesal Oil. Muhammad Amin Driver and 20 others filed a petition under section 22-A (8)
(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 which was registered as Case No,4-A (1127)/96-L. The said petition was heard and disposed of by Single Bench vide order dated 14-10-1996 whereby the said charge-sheets issued and served upon Muhammad Amin and 20 other drivers were declared illegal and consequently set aside: The District Manager, PRTC (Intercity) Pacca Garah, Sialkot filed an appeal against the said order of Single Bench which was dismissed by the Full Bench of N.I.R.C.
2. Now the present petitioner Punjab Road Transport Corporation (Urban), Islamabad through its Manager has served charge-sheets upon Farid Khan and Maseer Khan respondents Nos,3 and 4 who by that time had been transferred to Islamabad. Both respondents Nos,3 and 4 challenged the said charge-sheets before N.I.R.C. The matter came up for hearing before the Single Bench who vide order dated 9-8-1997 accepted the said petition on the analogy of order dated 14-10-1996 passed by the Single Judge and upheld by the Full Bench of N.I.R.C. The petitioner challenged the said order of Single Bench dated 9-8-1997 which has been upheld by the Full Bench vide order dated 19-3-1998.
3. Instant writ petition has been filed challenging the orders of Single Bench, dated 9-8-1997 and of Full Bench, dated 19-3-1998.
4. Pre-admission notice was issued to respondents Nos,3 and 4 who stand represented by their learned counsel.
5. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
6. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly order, dated 14-10-1996 was passed in a petition moved by Muhammad Amin and 20 other drivers in which the present respondents Nos,3 and 4 were not party, that although the charge-sheets served upon Muhammad Amin and 20 others were set aside by the N.I.R.C. Vide order, dated 14-10-1996 and the same order was upheld by the Full Bench later on yet the said judgment being a judgment in personam could not be stretched in favour of respondents Nos,3 and 4, that as such both the Single Bench of N.I.R.C. And Full Bench of N.I.R.C. Have committed material irregularity in passing the said order, that issuance of charge-sheet is the prerogative of the petitioner and N.I.R.C. Could not assume the jurisdiction and thereby quash the said charge-sheet, that the mere fact that the charge-sheets have been issued and served upon respondents Nos,3 and 4 does not mean that action falls within the ambit of unfair labour practice, that respondents Nos,3 and 4 had not attended the inquiry proceedings, as such proceedings before the N.I.R.C. Were premature.
7. Conversely the impugned orders, have been supported by the learned counsel for respondents Nos,3 and 4. To supplement his contention he submits that admittedly respondents Nos,3 and 4 had been working with 20 other drivers at Sialkot who were charge-sheeted by the present petitioner, that as respondents Nos,3 and 4 in the meanwhile, had been transferred to Islamabad so they could not join hands with their co-colleagues and assail the said charge-sheets by joining petition under section 22-A (8) (g) of the I.R.O., 1969, that charge-sheets were served in 1995 in respect of alleged misappropriation committed in 1986 as such said charge-sheets hopelessly barred by time that both the Courts below have not committed any material irregularity in passing the impugned orders and writ petition being devoid of any force merits dismissal.
8. Admittedly respondents Nos,3 and 4 have been working alongwith Muhammad Amin and 20 others who had challenged the charge-sheets by filing a petition under section 22-A (8)(g) of the I.R.O. The said charge-sheets were quashed by the Single Bench of N.I.R.C. Vide order dated 14-10- 1996 which was upheld by the Full Bench of N.I.R.C. Admittedly respondents Nos,3 and 4 were not arrayed as petitioners in the said petition filed by Muhammad Amin and others as they had been transferred to Islamabad by that time. However, it is admitted fact that the allegation against respondents Nos,3 and 4 is of similar nature as was the subject-matter of decision dated 14-10- 1996 referred above.
9. Even if it is assumed that judgment dated 14-10-1996 is a judgment in personam, yet the fact remains that allegation against the respondents is same as was against their co-workers and who were also issued such charge-sheets which were quashed by Single Bench of N.I.R C vide order dated 14-10-1996 and which was upheld by the Full Bench of the N.I.R.C. Thus, relying upon the principle of consistency both the Courts below have passed the impugned orders in accordance with law. There is no need to remand the matter for a fresh decision.
10. For what has been stated above, it is evident that impugned order has been passed in accordance with law. There is no force in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.