' General Manager, Faisalabad Telecommunication Region and Divisional Engineer, Phones, Faisalabad has filed this appeal against the decision. Dated 9-2-1998 given by Mr. Bahader Ali, Member, NIRC in Case No,4A (2966) of 1996-L whereby it was directed to take the respondent/petitioner on duty as regular employee.
2. The facts as narrated in his petition by the respondent/petitioner are that he was appointed as Telephone Operator on 31-8-1995 on contract basis and since then he has been working without any complaint. The President or Pakistan relaxed the maximum age limit for recruitment upto 30 years as a result of which the respondent became eligible for regular absorption. He applied for that purpose and the Headquarter of PTCL approved regular appointment of the respondent, which was communicated to the General Manager, F.T.R. Faisalabad vide letter dated 25-4-1996. On account of union activities of the respondent the General Manger refused to take the petitioner against regular post. He was, therefore, discriminated. At the instigation of the General Manager, the. Divisional Engineer, terminated the services of the respondent without serving any show-cause notice which was an act of unfrir labour practice. It was prayed in the petition that termination dated 3-12-1996, be set aside. After inviting written comments, Mr. Bahader Ali, Member heard arguments of the parties' counsel on 3-6-1997. The matter thereafter, was adjourned from time to time and the petition was accepted vide order dated 9-2-1998. The management has preferred the above appeal against that order.
3. The counsel for the appellants submitted that after insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the petitioner being civil servant could seek remedy against his termination from service before the Federal Service Tribunal and the Commission had no jurisdiction in the, matter. He further submitted mat the learned Member decided the case without recording any evidence. After hearing the arguments on 3-6-1997 the case was fixed for orders on 11-6-1997. The decision was intentionally and deliberately delayed by the said Member for obvious reasons. The case was adjourned from time to time with motives and lastly fixed for order on 8-1-1998. However, the Reader of the said Member adjourned the case to 14-3-1998. Then with ulterior motives, the reader himself fixed the case for 9-2-1998, and the case was decided by the said Member on that date behind the back of the appellant. The learned counsel further submitted that the manner in which the case was decided was highly illegal and against the established norms of justice.
4. The respondent on the other hand stated that he was a Graduate and the HQ office of PTCL had issued directions to the appellants to regularise him as Messers Abdul Jabbar and Niaz Akber were regularised although they were junior to him. The policy letter was issued by the department on 21- 10-1995, but the appellants failed to implement that decision. The Single Bench therefore, rightly decided the case.
5. We have considered the arguments and have gone through the record thoroughly. The Honourable Supreme Court has held in the reported case PLD 1996 SC 222, that the employees of the PTC/PTCL are civil servants and in respect of their terms and conditions of service the remedy available to them is before the Federal Service Tribunal after insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. We are bound to follow the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court. In the case of WAPDA employees also the Supreme Court has held all those employees as civil servants which decision is also applicable to the case of the employees of PTCL. Reference is made to 1998 SCMR 2129 = 1999 PLC (C.S.) 1371. Mr Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum, in his decision dated 15-12-1998, recorded in Writ Petition No,12364 of 1998, relaying on 1998 PLC (C.S.) 627, and 1998 PLC 227, has held the employees of the PTCL as civil servants. As such the Single Bench of this Commission wrongly assumed the jurisdiction in this matter and the impugned decision is not maintainable as being without lawful authority. It has also been noticed with regret that the Single Bench seized of the matter failed to record necessary evidence. Although the arguments were heard on 3-6-1997 and the case was put for orders to 11-6-1997, but the decision was not announced and the matter was subsequently adjourned to 26-11.1997 and then to 8-1-1998, on which date the Reader adjourned the case to 14-3-1998 on an application made by the petitioner. This practice adopted certainly raised serious doubts in the mind of the counsel for the appellants, who stressed before us that the manner in which the case was conducted by the Member/Reader was contrary to the norms of justice and raised suspicion that it was done to unnecessarily favour the employee for obvious reasons. We have noted that this practice adopted in handling this case was not proper and the apprehension shown by the learned counsel for the appellant were not without reasons.
The said learned Member is advised to take special care in handling the cases in future.
In the light of the above discussion, we are inclined to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 9-2-1998 passed by Mr. Bahader Ali, Member in Case No(2966) of 1997-L, and direct the office to return the petition to the respondent for seeking remedy before the competent forum, if so advised.