' AKBAR M. MEMON (MEMBER).---Appellants hereinabove have challenged their termination of temporary/training assignment whereby they were terminated by the respondents on 30-7-1999.
Since facts of all these appeals are identical, as such, the same are being disposed of by this single order.
2. In the above appeals, pre-admission notice was ordered on 23-12-2000, and the respondents thereafter filed their pre-admission comments.
3. We have heard Mr. Mazaffar-ul-Haq, learned counsel for the appellants and so also Mr. Zaheer, Associate of Mr. Ch. Jamil, Advocate for the respondents.
4. Muzaffar-ul-Haq, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the present appellants were appointed as Trainee Engineers on different dates in the year 1995 for a period of six months extendable at the discretion of the Company and after having worked for more than four years, they ought to have been permanently absorbed by the respondent-Company, but this was not done. He has contended that the assignment of the appellants was discontinued after issuance of show-cause notice pursuant to the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court, but according to him, the order itself was void against which no limitation runs. He has contended that departmental appeals were filed on 19-8-1999, but the same remained unresponded, as such, present appeals be admitted and the same be decided on merits.
5. Mr. Zaheer, Associate of Mr. Ch. Jamil, Advocate appearing for the respondents at the outset has contended that the appeals from the face of it appear to be time-barred as the appellants ought to have approached this Tribunal within 30 days of the service of the termination letter or within120 days of the sending of the departmental appeal, which are said to have been sent on 19-8-1999. He has contended that the present service appeals have been filed on 4-8-2000, 8-8-2000 and 4-10- 2000, which show that the same have been filed after a delay of about 206, 210 and 367 days, after excluding 120 days from the date of filing departmental appeals. In this connection, he has referred to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. Anwar Ali Sahito where C.Ps. Nos. 1515, 1459 and 2112 of 2001 were dismissed being hopelessly time-barred as the petitions were out of time by 161, 161 and 227 days. At the same time, he has contended that the appellants were wit civil servants and considering the fact that they were not appointed as per the policy laid down under the Tules of the Company, as such, the appellants have no case at all.
6. Mr. Muzaffar-ul-Haq, learned counsel for the appellants in reply, has contended that the appellants were civil servants for the purpose of approaching this Tribunal for the redressal of their grievance as has been held in Syed Aftab Ahmed and others v. K.E.S.C. Reported in 1999 SCM R 197.
He has contended that in number of cases the respondents had given undertaking before Hon'ble High Court as well before Hon'ble Supreme Court that the incumbents like appellants would not be removed excepting in due course of law, then too, termination orders have been issued, as such, appellants have been able to make out case for admission of the appeal. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on 1978 CLC 1999, 1996 SCM R 1185 and PLD 1976 Lahore 580 and also photo-copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Sindh in Const. Petition No, D-1378/97 and others on 27-11-1997.
7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have gone through the appeal file and so also the authorities cited by the respective Advocates.
8. Before we proceed further, it is pertinent to bring it on record that complete sets of documents have not been filed by the counsel for appellants in each appeal along with memo. Of appeal.
Impugned order dated 30-7-1999 shows that the show-cause notice was served upon the appellants on 16-7-1999 pursuant to the orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 31-3-1998.
This all speaks that prior to the issuance of the termination letter dated 30-7-1999, there 'had been some litigation between the parties and the appellants might have approached Hon'ble High Court and then Hon'ble Supreme Court, but no mention finds place in the memo. Of appeal nor any document of such nature has been filed.
9. Since no document whatsoever, has been filed and on perusal of the appeal files, it appears that the question of limitation is involved in all these appeals, as such, without touching the merits of the appeals, we intend to decide the point of limitation. No doubt, the appellants were appointed on 28-2-1995, 10-10-1995 and 4-5-1995 respectively and the letter of discontinuation of temporary/training assignment was issued on 30-7-1999, whereas the present appeals were filed on 4-8-2000, 8-8-2000 and 4-10-2000. Legally speaking the appellants ought to have filed A appeal within 30 days of the service of termination order or in the alternative within 120 days after filing departmental appeal, but the appellants chose to file their appeals after the delay of about 206, 210 and 267 days. The counsel for appellants has, no doubt, placed reliance on 1996 SCM R 1185, where placitum (C) reads as under: "S.
4. Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arta 212. Appeal to Service Tribunal or Supreme Court. Effect. If the Service Tribunal or Supreme Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covers not only the case of civil servant who litigated, but also of other civil servants, who may have not taken any legal proceedings, in such a case, the dictates and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of such judgment by Service Tribunal/Supreme Court be extended to other civil servants, who may not be parties to the litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Service Tribunal or any other forum."
' At the same time, he has raised the objection that the very order from the face of it appears to be void, as such, limitation would not come in the way of the appellants, but we are of the view that the appellants ought to have filed appeal within the prescribed period of limitation and when this doesn't appear to have been done, we will not be in a position to condone the delay as no reasonable justification has been given in the affidavit filed along with condonation application.
The only justification, which has been given in the affidavit, is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed an order in CP No, 4 of 1993 (Mir Muhammad and others v. Sui Gas) that the Tribunal may consider the condonation application sympathetically and that the appellants may not be knocked out on technical grounds, but the facts of these appeals are quite distinguishable as the appellants have not been able to explain the delay of 206, 210 and 267 days, accordingly applications for condonation of delay stand rejected as the same are without any force.
10. Consequently, we decline to admit the appeals and the same stand dismissed in limine being hopelessly time-barred.