This Constitutional petition calls in question the legality and the propriety of the orders dated 3-9- 1997 passed by the Punjab Labour Court No,6, Rawalpindi, and the order dated 17-5-1999 passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal whereby the application of the petitioner seeking revival of the dismissed appeal was dismissed.
2. The necessary facts forming the background of the orders impugned in this Constitutional petition are that the petitioner was employed as a Chowkidar in the MCB Branch located at Sui Chemian, Tehsil Gujar Khan, District Rawalpindi. He absented himself from the place of his duty on 1-3-1996 to 2-3-1996. On the night following in-between these two dates theft was committed in the aforesaid Branch of the MCB as a result whereof a gun SMS and 23 live cartridges were stolen and the locks of the Branch of the Bank were also found broken. Consequent upon this occurrence, the Bank directed an inquiry to be held into the circumstances in which the petitioner absented himself from the place of his duty which led to the aforesaid loss of the bank property. The petitioner was associated with the inquiry so held and given opportunity to explain his position vis- a-vis the charge levelled against him by the Bank Management. As a result of the findings of the Inquiry Officer, holding the petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 2-6-1996. Feeling himself aggrieved of his dismissal in the manner aforementioned, the petitioner filed a grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court No,6 at Rawalpindi which was dismissed by the said Court after recording of evidence and affording such opportunity of hearing to the parties as was warranted by law vide its order dated 3-9-1997. The petitioner thereafter lifted the matter up in appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal at Lahore. The said appeal was filed on 16-9-1997. However, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17-12-1998. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for restoration of his appeal dismissed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal as aforesaid vide his application dated 16-2-1999. Needless to say that this application moved by the petitioner for the restoration of his appeal was moved by him almost after two months and was thus barred by time.
In any event the application moved by the petitioner seeking restoration of his appeal too was dismissed on 14-5-1999. Whereafter he moved yet another application on 15-5-1999 seeking revival of his application which had been dismissed and which he had filed for the restoration of his appeal. This application of the petitioner was fmally dismissed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 17-5-1999 holding that no case was made out by the petitioner for the restoration of his appeal.
3. In the aforesated background of facts the petitioner has now approached this Court in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction so as to seek annulment of the order dated 3-9-1997 passed by the Punjab Labour Court No,6 at Rawalpindi whereby his grievance petition was dismissed on merits and the order dated 17-5-1999 of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore whereby his application seeking restoration of his appeal was also dismissed on merits finding no grounds for the revival of the appeal.
4. Ch. Muhammad Ayub, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the petitioner while the respondent- Bank was represented by Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, Advocate, Ch. Muhammad Ayub, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in support of the Constitutional petition has raised the following contentions:-
(i) That no due opportunity was afforded to the petitioner by the respondent-Bank before ordering the dismissal of his service and as such the order of his dismissal amounted to condemning the petitioner unheard;
(ii) that the petitioner was the only Chowkidar appointed by the respondent-Bank at the above- mentioned Branch of MCS and that it was humanly impossible for the petitioner to remain present on duty all the time without any break and that the Bank authorities did not appreciate this human aspect of the case and proceeded to pass an order of dismissal against the petitioner in a mehanical manner;
(iii) that the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal did not dismiss the petitioner's appeal on merits. The same was instead dismissed for non-prosecution. This way the petitioner's point of view never came before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and the said Tribunal was not at all justified in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner without affording an opportunity of hearing to him.
5. Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank repudiated the contentions raised for and on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel Ch. Muhammad Ayub.
He submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he was condemned unheard by the Bank was to say the least, preposterous. He submitted that a full-fledged inquiry was held by the Bank and the petitioner was associated with it and afforded full opportunity to place his case before the Inquiry Officer. With a view to showing the falsity of the claim of the petitioner's learned counsel that no inquiry was held by the Bank before ordering the dismissal of the petitioner, learned counsel for the Bank produced before this Court the Inquiry Officer who had conducted the inquiry into the charge leading to the petitioner's dismissal. The said Inquiry Officer in the presence of the petitioner and his learned counsel repudiated the stand of the petitioner that no inquiry was held or that he was not afforded any opportunity of being heard or being associated with the inquiry.
Neither the petitioner nor his learned counsel rebutted the stand taken by the Inquiry Officer before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ch. Muhammad Ayub, did not say a word nor did he point out any defect in the order passed by the Punjab Labour Court No,6 at Rawalpindi dismissing the petitioner's grievance petition. His sole emphasis during the course of his arguments was that the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal did not dismiss the petitioner's appeal preferred by him against the decision of the Punjab Labour Court No,6 on merits. He submitted that if the petitioner's appeal had been heard and disposed of on merits he had a good arguable case before the Tribunal but that the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and this way the petitioner's version of the case never came before the Appellate Tribunal.
6. Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, Advocate, exercising his right of reply repudiated, the stand taken by and on behalf of the petitioner as to the dismissal of his appeal by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. He submitted that the reason why the petitioner's appeal could not be decided on merits was that he did not present himself before the said Tribunal which had no option but to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Be that as it may, Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, Advocate contended that the petitioner after the dismissal of his appeal by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal for non- prosecution moved an application for the restoration of his appeal but that this application too was barred by time. On the top of it, he maintained that the application moved by the petitioner seeking revival of his appeal which was barred by time was also dismissed for non-prosecution whereafter he moved yet another application seeking revival of his earlier application which was finally dismissed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 17-5-1999. This way Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank contended with some vehemence that the petitioner's conduct before the Appellate Tribunal was such as left no room with that Tribunal to- grant any relief to the petitioner as he in the first instance committed default at the time of the hearing of his appeal and thereafter having moved two applications for the revival of his appeal had the same also dismissed one for default of appearance and the other on merits.
7. I have considered and evaluated the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance very carefully. The petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court so as to seek annulment of the orders of the Tribunals below. This jurisdiction vesting in this Court under Article 199 besides being equitable' in nature is discretionary and ought not to be exercised in favor of a person whose conduct is such as is open to serious question. Now, in this particular case the petitioner's learned counsel tried to blow hot and cold in the same breath. He in the first instance contended that no inquiry whatever was held by the respondent-Bank to go into the charge levelled by the Bank against the petitioner and when the respondent-Bank repudiated his this contention by producing before the Court the very Inquiry Officer who had held the inquiry against the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner changed his stand and maintained that it was humanly impossible for the petitioner who was a Chowkidar to be present at the above-mentioned Branch of the Bank all the time. He gave up his earlier stand as to the non-holding of inquiry and argued that the nature of duty to be performed by the petitioner at the Bank was such that the Bank ought to have employed two Chowkidars at the said Branch of the Bank instead of one and that by keeping the petitioner as the only Chowkidar the respondent-Bank wanted the petitioner to do what was virtually impossible for him to do. As to the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, the stand of the petitioner's learned counsel with respect to it again is such as does not merit any serious consideration. Having filed the appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to prosecute the same with all the due diligence. However, on the appeal coming up before the Tribunal the petitioner absented himself and consequent upon his absence the Tribunal had no option but to dismiss his appeal for non-prosecution. The petitioner was so negligent and care-free in his conduct that he moved an application for the restoration of his appeal by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal but that the said application was also moved by him beyond time In any event the said application seeking revival of the appeal too was dismissed for non-prosecution. He thereafter moved yet another application for the revival of his first application seeking restoration of the appeal. After thoroughly examining the stand taken before it by both the parties the Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the application moved by the petitioner for the revival of his earlier application which was dismissed for non- prosecution. In the light of this conduct of the petitioner as exhibited by him before the Tribunal, I am afraid if he is entitled to any indulgence by this Court in the exercise of its equitable and discretionary jurisdiction.
8. The Constitutional petition is wholly meritless and frivolous and is, therefore, dismissed as such.