' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR J.--Leave to appeal was granted by this Court to consider whether the appellant was a workman having certain valuable rights protected under Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance") and the Federal Service Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to 'as ' the Tribunal') without assigning any reason, dismissed the appeal arbitrarily holding that he was governed by Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Service Corporation Ltd. (Efficiency and Discipline) Regulations, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations').
2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are that the appellant joined Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation Limited (hereinafter called as PASSCO') in the year 1979 as Purchase Inspector. A case was registered against him vide F.I.R. No,12 on 18-1-1985 under sections 380 and 411, P.P.0 which was found to be false during the investigation by police and the said F.I.R. Was cancelled by the Illaqa Magistrate on 6-7-1985. However, prior to that on 31-6-1985, he was issued a charge-sheet and a final show-cause notice on 8-2-1986 about his removal from service. The appellant contested the said show-cause notice and denied the allegations but ultimately he was found guilty of the charge and removed from service on 8-3-1986.
3. Being aggrieved after service of a notice under section 25 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IRO') he filed grievance petition before the Labour Court on 18- 5-1986. An objection was raised by the respondents that the appellant was not a workman, therefore, he could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan, vide order dated 22-3-1990 accepted the grievance petition, set aside the order of removal from service and re-instated the appellant in service with back-benefits holding him to be a workman.
The said judgment was assailed in appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal by the respondents who vide order dated 12-12-1990 upheld the findings of the Punjab Labour Court to the effect that the allegations against the appellant were not established, but accepted the appeal and dismissed the grievance petition on the ground that the appellant was not a workman as such not competent to seek remedy under the I.R.O.
4. Appellant invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, under Article 199 of the Constitution. Learned Lahore High Court vide judgment dated 16-10-1991 accepted the writ petition and quashed the order of the Punjab Labour Appellant Tribunal being without lawful authority and restored the order dated 22-3-1990 of the Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan.
5. It was thereafter on 21-8-1998 that a charge-sheet was issued to the appellant with the following allegations: "(i) Shortage of 68200 Kgs. Wheat (758 bags) at Pakpattan Godowns during the Wheat Crop Season, 1991.
(ii) 625 wheat bags shown as transferred out of your stock from Pakpattan Godowns to Incharge Railway Station Pakpattan, Mr. Shoukat Hussain Shah, but the same was not acknowledged at the receiving end during Wheat Crop Season, 1991.
(iii) Conunitted shortage of 17105 B Class and 6-D Class Bardana during the Wheat Crop Season, 1991, at Pakpattan Godowns.
(iv) Shortage of 1336-B class gunny bags at Sahiwal Godowns during Wheat Crop Season, 1990.
6. Another charge-sheet was also issued to the appellant on 4-11-1998 about illegal and unauthorised retention of official record and for not depositing the records of PASSCO Godowns, Sahiwal and Pakpattan with the Zonal Office.
7. An Inquiry Committee was constituted to enquire into the allegations which submitted its report on 20-3-1999 finding that the above mentioned charges stood proved against the appellant. The Authorised Officer vide his letter dated 3-4-1999 recommended imposition of major penalty and recovery of total loss from him, a copy whereof was given to the appellant. He was, however, afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on 6-4-1998 and was also personally heard by General Manager (Admin.) but could not bring any material in his defence, thus, being guilty of misconduct for causing wilful loss to the Corporation, major penalty of dismissal from service was .
Imposed upon him vide order dated 1-6-1999. Appellant preferred departmental appeal to the Managing Director PASSCO, which was rejected on 8-7-1999, whereafter he filed service appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 22-1-2001, hence this petition.
8. We have heard Mr.Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Kh.Muhammad Akram, learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
9. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant stated that after the insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the only forum for the redressal of the grievance of the appellant was to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. According to him, the appellant is a civil servant for limited purpose of maintaining his appeal before the Tribunal. He further contended that after passing the dismissal order dated 22-12-1992 for the first time, the respondents became functus officio and could not pass second dismissal order dated 1- 6-1999 in presence of the first order against which an appeal of the respondents in pending adjudication before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore. Even otherwise appellant has been declared to be a workman within the provisions of IRO by the Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan as such the provisions of Standing Order No,15(4) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, would be attracted and the case of the appellant should have been decided by the Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of law. He lastly contended that the Tribunal has rejected the appeal- in summary manner without adverting to the facts and grounds urged by the appellant. In support of his contentions, he relied upon (i) United Bank Limited through President v. Shahmim Ahmed Khan and 41 others (PLD 1999 SC 990), and (ii) Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Saleem (1994 SCM R 2213).
10. The PASSCO has been registered under the Companies Act, 1913, as a private limited Company wherein the Federal Government has 25% shares, whereas the remaining shares lie with other nationalized scheduled Banks. However, the Company is administratively controlled by the Federal Government as per Entry No,31 in the Rules of Business, therefore, appellant shall be deemed to be a "civil servant" within the meaning of section 2-A of the Act only for the limited purpose to avail the remedy of appeal before the Service Tribunal. Therefore, simply by insertion of section 2-A in the Act the status of the petitioner would not be affected but the terms and conditions of his service would be governed by the Ordinance. The contention that the provisions of the said order have not been complied with properly in the petitioner's case mainly for the reasons that the first and the final show-cause notices regarding misconduct were issued after the expiry of 30 days from the date of the alleged misconduct, is devoid of force. In our view the respondent-Company adopted proper procedure and after holding the enquiry in accordance with law found him guilty of misconduct and rightly removed him from service. In the case of United Bank Limited (supra), it has been held by this Court that exclusive jurisdiction to take cognizance of matters relating to terms and conditions of persons who are or have been in the Service of Pakistan including disciplinary matters lie with Service Tribunals established under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Therefore, in order to oust the jurisdiction of ordinary Courts and to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Service Tribunal in respect of matters relating to terms and conditions of service of an employee, it was necessary that the employment under the bank be first declared to be the Service of Pakistan.
11. The case of Trustees of the Port of Karachi (supra) is also not relevant to the case of the appellant as it pertains to the year 1994, whereas section 2-A has been inserted in the Act on 10-6- 1997.
12., Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment which is accordingly maintained.
13. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed.