MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.- This order will govern C.Ps. Nos. 1361, 1362, 1363 and 1386 of 1998 as they arise out of the common judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad.
2. All the four petitioners in the titled petitions were Officers/Employees of the United Bank Limited in various Branches of the Bank. After due legal formalities, they were found guilty of fraud, forgery in the Bank's accounts, preparation of false documents etc., breach of trust and of gross misconduct.
All the four petitioners were, therefore, dismissed from service -on various dates. They approached the Labour Court in 1984 and grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969). In consequence of insertion of Section 2-A in the Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973, their grievance petitions were held to have abated, They, accordingly, approached the Federal Service Tribunal in appear which were, however, dismissed in limine vide impugned order, dated 28-9-1998.
3. Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned Advocate Supreme Court in support of these petitions has placed reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court passed in Civil Petitions Nos. 483 of 1998 and 685 of 1998 titled Ltd. -Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Siddique v. Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad. Decided on 16-12-1998, to contend that the same were converted into appeals and the cases were remanded to the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Firstly for reconsideration of the question of limitation and thereafter, to give a decision on merit in case the aforesaid question of limitation is decided in favour of the appellants. Since in the identical factual background of cases, Civil Petitions Nos. 483 of 1998 and 685 of 1998 were converted into appeals and were remanded for recommendation of the plea of limitation, we grant leave in this case to consider the following questions of law of public importance for determination by this Court:--
(a) Whether the Federal Service Tribunal justifiably dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner as barred by time?
(b) Whether it was not a fit case in which the delay in filing the appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal should have been condoned?