AJMAL MIAN, C.J.-- By this common judgment we intend to dispose of the above 47 petitions, which are directed against a common judgment dated 5-10-1998 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) passed in Appeal No. 898 of 1997 and the concerned appeals, filed by the petitioners against the orders of their dismissal from service of the various hospitals, dismissing the same.
2. The brief facts are that one Rana Muhammad Ilyas, Chairman, Para-Medical Staff Association, Mental Hospitals, Lahore served a notice on the Medical Superintendent, Government Mental Hospital, Lahore to the effect that from 5-12-1992, the staff of the hospital would observe strike in support of their demands. After two days, the above demand notice was followed by the publication of a pamphlet containing certain demands of the Pakistan Para-Medical Staff Association, Government Hospital, Lahore. The authorities found that the demands were illegal and that the aforesaid Association had no right to disturb the peace of the hospital and to abandon their duties. The staff members were asked to attend to their duties. It appears that on account of their defiant and contumacious attitude, six employees of the mental hospital were proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and were ultimately suspended.
3. It appears that on 2-1-1993 the Association of the Government Mental Hospital called upon the employees of all the hospitals to abandon their duties in the hospitals and go on strike in favour of their following demands:- "(1) That the suspension orders of the employees of the hospital be withdrawn;
(2) That the Medical Superintendent of Mental Hospital, Lahore be transferred immediately; and
(3) That those employees who were transferred as a sequel to the strike may be restored to their original positions and the employees of the hospital should not be victimized for joining strike."
In response to the above call the staff of the Mental Hospital which included sweepers, wardboys and other similar staff went on strike. This was followed by joining of the strike by the paramedics of the other hospitals. As a result of the above strike a few casualties had taken place in the Mayo Hospital and in some other hospitals in the Province and the administration of the hospitals stood paralysed. Thereupon, the competent Authority issued notice on 7-1-1993 in the daily "Nawa-i- Waqt" to all the para-medical staff, calling upon them to immediately attend to their duties to mitigate the sufferings of the unattended patients. They were also warned that in case they failed to do so, the law shall take its own course and the disciplinary action shall follow. When the above notice and warning were ignored, another warning was issued through daily newspapers "Pakistan", "Khabrain" and "Mashraq" and almost through all the national dailies on 10-1-1993, again calling upon them to immediately report for duty otherwise proceedings under Rule 9(3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, would be initiated against them.
4. The above second warning too proved to be futile, inasmuch as the petitioners did not return to their duties and consequently, the competent Authority was forced to proceed against them under the aforesaid provision of law and after taking necessary steps, issued their dismissal orders. The petitioners first filed their departmental appeals and then approached the Tribunal which, through the impugned judgment, declined the above appeals on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the above petitions for leave to appeal.
5. In support of the above petitions Hafiz Tariq Nasim, learned counsel appearing tor the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the impugned judgment is not sustainable, in as much as it violates the rule of consistency tor the reason, that the Tribunal in some identical the delinquent employees' service appeals and reinstated them, and so also the actions of the Government, which in certain cases had allowed the departmental appeals filed by the delinquent employees of the hospitals. To reinforce the above submission, he has referred to the following cases:--
(1) Muhammad Arif Siddiqui v. Government of Pakistan (1988 SC MR 673);
(2) Ahdur Rehman Babar v. N.-W.F.P, through the Chief Secretary Government of N.-W.F.P. (1989 SCM R 928); and
(3) Rehmat Ali Shah v. Secretary, Defence Production Division, Rawalpindi (1990 SCM R 1500).
6. In our view the above reports have no application to the present case. The question at issue is, as to whether this is a fit case in which this Court should grant leave, which is a discretionary power.
Admittedly, the petitioners in spite of the above repeated public notices and warnings did not report for duty, with the result that a large number of patients in the Province of Punjab encountered hardships and some of them even expired. Such an irresponsible conduct on the part of the petitioners cannot be countenanced by this Court. The petitioners were subject to the provisions of the Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958, which prohibits the employees, subject to the provision of the above Act, from absenting themselves from work. As a matter of fact, Section 7 of the above Act imposes criminal liability by providing that a person guilty of breach of the above provision of the Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, and with fine. In presence of the above Act, the petitioners have no legal justification to go on strike. Since the petitioners remained absent from their duties in spite of repeated notices and warnings without any justifiable reasons, the action of the hospital authorities to dismiss them from service is unexceptionable.
7. Consequently, leave to appeal is refused and the petitions are dismissed.