ZIAULLAH KHAN NIAZI vs CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RED CRESCENT SOCIETY

' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---These petitions are directed against judgment dated 15-11-2002 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No, 1700 of 2002.

2. The facts of the case, as spelt out in C.P. No,4155-L of 2002, are that the petitioner an Assistant Secretary (BS-17), in the Pakistan Red Crescent Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society), was removed from service, by order dated 13-4-2002. He filed Appeal No,1700 of 2002 before the Tribunal which was accepted by the impugned judgment dated 15-11-2002. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated in service and the intervening period was treated as leave of the kind due.

The Tribunal also directed the respondent to conduct a de novo inquiry against the petitioner within 60 days. Hence these petitions by both the parties for grant of leave to appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had already been exonerated from the same charges in an inquiry held by the respondent-Society. The petitioner had also been reverted to the post of Relief Officer on account of some adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Reports. Therefore, it was not open for the respondent-Society, on the principle of double jeopardy, to hold a .De novo inquiry against the petitioner. As to the question of lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the learned counsel submitted that the orders impugned before the Tribunal were passed by the Punjab Branch of the Society under the provisions of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers)Ordinance, 2000. As such, the petitioner had rightly invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the matter of jurisdiction of the Tribunal was of fundamental importance which ought to have been determined by the Tribunal independently of any consent by the parties. It was further submitted that the petitioner was governed by the rule of master and servant in the absence of any statutory rules of service of employees of the Society. As to the question of limitation in filing C.P. No,333-L of 2003, the learned counsel contended that the respondent had already moved C.M.A. No,726-L of 2003 for condonation of delay and that the impugned judgment was already the subject-matter of C.P.

No,4155-L of 2002 filed by the petitioner.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. We find that the respondent-Society was constituted by the provisions of section 2 of the Pakistan Red Crescent Society Act (XV of 1920)

(hereinafter referred to as the Act). Its operational area covers the whole of Pakistan. The President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is the President of the Society as provided by section 3 of the Act. By section 4 of the Act it is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to hold and acquire property, movable and immovable and may sue or be sued by the name of the Society. As enumerated in the General Principles of Society, its object and principal ainis include the prevention and alleviation of the suffering with complete impartiality both at national and international level and to A render voluntary aid to the sick and wounded of the armed forces in times of war in accordance with spirit and conditions of the Geneva Conference and the Treaties of Red Cross to which Pakistan has given its adhesion. The Act, being an existing law was amended by the Central Legislature/Parliament from time to time. The Society cannot be treated as a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the province. Therefore, the employees of the Society cannot be treated as civil servants of the Province of Punjab, by any stretch of imagination. B They cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal merely on the ground that they are employed in the provincial branch of the Society. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal suffers from defect of jurisdiction.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the C.P.S. L. A. No .4155-L of 2002 filed by Ziaullah Khan Niazi is dismissed whereas C.P.S.L.A. No,333-L of 2003 filed by therespondent is converted into appeal and the same is allowed by condoning the delay for the reasons stated in C.M.A. No,726-L of 2003. The impugned judgment dated 15-11-2002 passed by the Tribunal is set aside.

8. However, the petitioner may, if so advised, move the appropriate forum through appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law, for the redress of his grievance. The forum concerned shall give due consideration for condonation of delay occurred in pursuing, by the petitioner, his remedies before the Tribunal and this Court.