' MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN (MEMBER).---The appellant in person and the learned counsel for respondents PIAC present have been heard and record perused.
2. Brief facts of the appeal, as gleaned out from the record, are that the appellant, a Bachelor of Electronics Engineering from Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, having secured First Division in the year 1990, was called for interview before the Selection Board/Committee comprising:--
(a) Director, Precision Engineering Complex;
(b) General Manager, Quality Assurance;
(c) General Manager, Aero Space; and
(d) Administrative Manager, and the appellant was lucky enough to clear the interview as a result of which he was selected as "casual worker" under letter dated 23-10-1994 at a rate of Rs,113 per day and, after having been found efficient by the respondent-organization, his 'casual employment' was converted into "contract employment" for a period of three years as Project Offcer, PG-V by letter, dated 22-11-1995 and he joined as such on the same day.
3. It is to observe that Precision Engineering Complex is an approved and certified organization by the International Standard Organization 9002 and is engaged amongst others in the:- "(1) Manufacturing of Aircraft structural;
(ii) Engine parts of Messrs General Electric USA, and
(iii) SNECMA (France) Boeing Airplane Group (USA) and Haispano Suiza (France)." and thus, in order to meet its requirements of skilled and qualified personnel, Precision Engineering Complex independently proceeded to recruit persons who were up to the required mark with necessary background and academic qualifications and the appellant was ultimately elected and appointed on merits considering his ability and suitability. The initial appointment of the appellant was reportedly for a period of three years on contractual basis extendable for a further period of three years. The Precision Engineering Complex of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation is a specialised field with highly technical sphere of activities and the incumbents, inclusive of the appellant, have been trained and acquired the necessary skill over the period of time and to dispense with the services of such qualified persons has not only resulted in wastage of 'precious resources incurred in. Development of skills but simultaneously jeopardised the national interest besides handsome loss to the national exchequer. It is further alleged that the appellant worked with utmost sincerity, dedication and full devotion coupled with sense of responsibility to the entire satisfaction of the PIAC Management and due to these and other factors the PIAC is earning handsome profit which objective is shortly impossible to be achieved without dedication of its employees but despite this with the change of Government, the employees inducted during the earlier regime became scapegoat at the hands of the succeeding Government but that employment of the appellant was purely on merits being technical hand, and not on political consideration and, in spite of that, respondent No,1 under the directive of the Federal Government, took summary termination of its hundred employees, in bloc by adoption of a policy of pick and choose so much so that even the termination orders of certain incumbents were issued and subsequently withdrawn and they were reinstated in service. Likewise Mr. Omar Imtiaz and Mrs. Yasmin Haroon were firstly terminated but their termination orders were also withdrawn and the copies of the orders of extension in service of the various incumbents have been annexed to the appeal (copies Annexures-C, C/1 to C/8 respectively).
4. It is further alleged that the appellant was terminated on 12-12-1996 without issuance of any show-cause notice. Thus, he was condemned unheard and thereby the principle of natural justice has been violated beside, the vioaltion of PIAC Regulations, 1985. It is also stated that the writ petition was filed before the High Court of Sindh and the impugned order was suspended. However, the same was disposed of on 4-4-1997 in limine and thereafter a petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and reportedly a stay was granted but subsequently the appeal was disposed of on 31-3-1998 with the direction to approach this Tribunal vide copy of the order available at Annexures-D and D/1 respectively. It is however, alleged that the contract of the appellant did not expire and hence termination of his service was illegally made.
5. The appellant's terms and conditions of service have duly been spelled out in the order, dated 22-11-1995 (copy available at Annexure B/2 page 31 of the file) vide which he was appointed on 'contract basis' for a period of three years commencing from 22-11-1995 to. 21-11-1998 and at page 2 of the order, he was to be posted at Precision Engineering Department, Karachi Airport, Karachi. .
6. The appellant has annexed copies of the orders regarding extension of contract periods of Atif Hussain, Jan Muhammad, Mansoor Jalal and Kazi Attique Ahmed, whose services have been extended for a period of one year (copies of the orders are available at Annexures C, C/1 to C/3 respectively) while the services of Sultan Mehmood and Jehangir have been made permanent vide Annexures-C/4 and C/5.
7. Last but not the least is the objection raised by the appellant that an incompetent authority had passed the termination order of the appellant and that the respondents have sheerly failed to produce a copy of the approval of the competent authority terminating his services as required.
8. The respondent PIAC has hotly contested the appeal and has raised a preliminary objection that the appellant has not filed a departmental appeal and in disregard of the mandatory provisions of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, he has approached this Tribunal but this objection has been raised for the sake of objection for the reason that the appellant has already filed a departmental appeal on 1-4-1998, copy of which is available at page 75, marked Annexure-E.
Anyhow had he not filed a departmental appeal even then his service appeal filed under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, was competent and could be considered by the Tribunal in view of the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and contained in its judgment dated 16-4-1998 and is reported as 1992 SCMR 197 and at para. 5, marked 'D' of the judgment this matter of non-filing of a departmental appeal was left open for decision to he rendered by the Service Tribunal. However, the exact wordings recorded in the said judgment are reproduced herein for ready reference:-- "......Some of the petitioners had approached the Service Tribunal without filing an appeal or representation or before expiry of 90 days from the date of filing an appeal or representation. The Service Tribunal was supposed to examine this question on the basis of law or the relevant rules applicable to the employees concerned"
' Since in the instant appeal the appellant has already filed a departmental appeal hence the question of filing of departmental appeal, as posed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan for determination by this Tribunal does not arise.
9. To repeat again, the appellant was inducted in service under Pakistan International Airlines Corporation after subjecting to a thorough test and interview by the Board concerned but despite his selection, purely on merit, out of about 259 incumbents, he and 2/3 others were targetted. The earlier two incumbents had sought their reinstatement in service from this Tribunal but their appeals were dismissed (Appeals Nos.555 and 556-K of 1998) by the Tribunal by its judgment dated 26-7-1998 and it was stated at the bar by the appellant that by that time it was not made open that their impugned orders were passed by an incompetent authority. In this respect document, dated January 8, 1995 (Annexure-C) is relied upon wherein it was strongly recommended by its author, Sardar Khan, AVM(R) Director, Precision Engineering Complex and para. 3 of which found relevant, is reproduced below for ready reference:-- "3. While keeping in view the work load, satisfactory performance `of individual worker and requirements of the Precision Engineering Department, it is considered feasible, not to lose the experienced/skilled workers. Therefore, it is suggested that from the existing 259 temporarily hired workers we may (illegible) to be converted on 3-yearly contract basis and be accommodated in different pay groups according to their qualifications as per given below details:-- "Qualification Pay Group ' B.E./M.Sc. V ' COMPETENT AUTHORITY
10. Now the last question which is not only the last but simultaneously a weighty and legal question to the effect that according to the contention of the appellant, the Competent Authority in the case of the appellant was the Director/Managing Director, PIAC whereas his termiantion was made by an incompetent/unauthorised officer, i,e, Admin.
' Manager, without obtaining the approval of the Competent Authority and he (Admin. Manager) falsely used the words in termination order of the appellant:-- "This has the approval of the Competent Authority." ' but actually no such approval was obtained from the Competent Authority and for this reason, the Audit Branch of the PIAC had refused to settle finally the dues of the appellant due to non- availability of approval of the Competent Authority about termination of the appellant from service specially when the Ministry of Defence and the PIAC Management had decided not to termiante the services of any employee of Precision Engineering Complex due to shortage of technical manpower, which assumed utmost importance in the case of the appellant who was given intensive training after having undergone test and interview and it was stated at the bar by the appellant that his emoluments have yet to be paid to him and secondly that he was appointed for a period of three years but after rendering one year's service he was terminated and due to these two main objections by the Audit Department, he has not been paid the arrears of his pay and allowances.
11. In order to meet the objection with respect of the filing of the departmental appeal, it is to observe that the appellant's services were terminated by order, dated 12-12-1996 against which the appellant and four others had filed writ petition before the Sindh High Court , Karachi which was pleased to suspend the operation' of the termination order by its order dated 9-1-1997 and passed a direction for notice to the respondents on 16-1-1997 but ultimately the appeal was dismissed on 4-4-1997 and thereafter, the appellant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan which was pleased to grant a stay but subsequently the appeal was also dismissed on 31-3-1998 with the observation:-- ' that in case the appellants feel that they have justifiable cause of action they may approach the Federal Service Tribunal. The appellants may file an application for condonation of delay before the Tribunal which may be considered sympathetically and the appellants may not be knocked-out on the technical ground."
12. The appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit.
The appellant is a civil servant in terms of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, inserted therein with effect from 10-6-1997 under the Amending Act No,XVII of 1997. It is further to observe that consequent upon the dismissal of the appellant's appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, he was finally released from service by order dated 31-3-1998 (placed on appeal file,.
Annexure-R/2) against which he filed a departmental appeal on 1-4-1998 promptly which was not responded to and he approached this Tribunal on 18-7-1998 which appears to be within time.
Against the earlier termination order, dated 12-12-1996, he promptly pursued his legal right by way of writ petition before the Sindh High Court and further sought remedy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and in that respect if his appeal was time-barred we, pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 31-3-1998, condone the delay, if any, in approaching this Tribunal sheerly in the interest of justice specially when the services of an Advocate were not available to him having no means to engage a counsel.
13. On the factual side we find the appellant is fully qualified but despite being a technical hand and having undergone training and found most suitable for the PIAC as per recommendations of the Precision Engineering Department (copy available at Annex-C), he was singled out along with two others out of the total strength of such technical hands of 259 incumbents without issuance of any show-cause notice, personal hearing and assigning any valid or invalid reason and thus, thereby the respondents violated not only the principles of natural justice but also the law and the rules on the subject. He was properly inducted in accordance with the rule (on merits) on the basis of test and interview. The policy of ad hocism motivated by the policy of pick and choose does not lie in the interest of PIAC and for that matter for the country as a whole. It annihilates the interest of civil servants A as well as the State and destabilized the society as a whole. Contented civil servants can show better performance as compared with the depressed and discouraged employees. In the instant case we have found that without any rhyme or reason the services of the appellant were terminated in face of his induction with the prior approval/permission of a High Powered Committee, as referred to in the earlier portion of this judgment. The terminating Authority was also ab initio incompetent to effect the termination of the appellant from service.
14. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, this appeal succeeds and is hereby accepted with costs and with all back benefits.. The appellant shall be taken back in service with effect from the date his services were terminated forthwith. However, back benefits shall be paid to the, appellant as early as possible but in no case later than four months.
15. Copies of this judgment shall be mailed to all concerned as required under rule 21 (1) of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974. /Order accordingly.