' The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that respondent No,1 was appointed as Naib- Qasid. He remained absent from duty, therefore, charge-sheet was issued to respondent No,1 and consequently his services were terminated vide order dated 20-1-1986. Respondent No,1 being aggrieved, filed appeal before petitioner No,2 on 6-1-1988 which was rejected vide order dated 2- 2-1988. The respondent No,1 being aggrieved, filed petition under section 25-h of I.R.O. Before Punjab Labour Court No,3, Lahore at Ferozewala, who dismissed the same vide order dated 30-9- 1989. Respondent No,1 being aggrieved, filed appeal before Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, who accepted the same vide judgment dated 21-2-1990.
2. The petitioners' counsel submits that impugned judgment of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is result of misreading and non-reading of record; that Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of Punjab Labour Court without adverting to the reasoning of Labour Court; that Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal misread the record and impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law; that respondent No,1 remained absent for two and half years. This fact was not noted and considered by Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal; that respondent No,1 did not send grievance notice to the petitioner well in time as prescribed under the provisions of I.R.O., 1969. . Respondent No,1 supported the judgment of Labour Appellate Tribunal that he did not receive the notice from petitioners. The notice for appearance was sent by petitioners at the residence of respondent No,1 but he was mentally upset and at that time he was admitted in the mental hospital, therefore, he did not receive the notice from petitioners; that impugned judgment of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal - is valid and has given findings of fact against the petitioners after proper appreciation of evidence; that grievance notice of petition filed by him is within time as prescribed under the provisions of I.R.O., 1969; that Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal passed the order after proper appreciation of evidence.
' In rebuttal, the petitioners' counsel submits that impugned judgment is not in accordance with law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention, he relied upon following judgments: ' Younis Gill v. Mis.. A.D. Marker (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 1993 PLC 184; Abdul Qadeer v. Pak Railway, Karachi 1993 PLC 882.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Both the Tribunal below misread the record therefore judgments of the Tribunal below which are result of misreading and non-reading of record. It is admitted fact that respondent No,1 filed appeal before Works Manager, Steel Shop Pakistan Railway, Mughalpura, Lahore on 6-1-1988 against his removal which was dismissed vide order dated 2-2-1988 which is as under:-- "Your appeal dated 6-1-1988 against the order of removal has been considered by the appellate authority (ESW), Mughalpura and rejected. "
' The aforesaid operative part of order of Departmental Appellate Authority reveals that the same was passed without applying independent mind. In fact the Appellate Authority countersigned the order of removal, therefore, same is not sustainable in the eyes of law as is held in Ghulam Mohy- ud-Din's case PLD 1964 SC 829. After addition of section 24-A in the General Clauses Act, it is the duty and obligation of public functionaries to redress the grievance of citizen with reasons as the principle laid down in Messrs Airport Supports Company's case 1998 SCM R 2268.
5. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned orders as well as order of Departmental Appellate Authority dated 2-2-1988 are set aside meaning thereby the appeal filed by respondent No,1 before Works Manager, Steel Shop Pakistan Railway, Mughalpura, Lahore shall be deemed to be pending adjudication. Respondent No,1 is directed to appear before petitioner No,2 on 30-11-2000, who shall decide the appeal of respondent No,1 strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to respondent No,1 within two months. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposedof.