HAIDER ABBAS RIZVI Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, KARACHI
1. HAZIQUL KHAIRI, J: ‑‑On 3‑12‑1988 respondent No. 1 namely Muhammad Saeed, Store Supervisor in Pakistan International Airlines, the petitioner herein, was suspended on the charge of accepting the short supply of 191 reams of white offset papers from Suppliers M/s. Shaukat Paper Mart, Karachi and was charge‑sheeted vide show‑cause notice, dated 8‑12‑1988, which reads as follows:
PIA ACQUISITION AND MATERIAL SUPPORT DEPARTMENT
CONFIDENTIAL
2. GM: MS: P‑1108:88
3. 8th December, 1988.
4. Mr. Muhammad Saeed,
5. P‑11408,
6. Store Supervisor,
7. Stockroom‑41/64.
8. Through Mangier Material Support Commercial
9. Subject: Show‑Cause Notice
10. You Mr. Muhammad Saeed, P‑11408, Store Supervisor, Stockroom 41/64 are hereby charged for committing act National Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985.
(2) The following charges have been levelled against you regarding "Short Supply of Offset Paper White size 11‑1/2x8‑1/2" 90 grams against Acquisition (Commercial) Order Number D‑732/89, vide delivery Challan No. 000074, dated 23rd October, 1988 by M/s. Shaukat Paper Mart, Karachi:‑‑
(a) It is established that you manoeuvred to stock an unrecorded surplus quantity of 191 reams of Offset Paper white size 11‑1/2 x 8‑1/2" 90 grams.
(b) It is also established that you with the connivance of the Supplier planned and accepted short supply of 191 reams against the above order.
(3) Now, therefore, in view of the above facts and accusation levelled against you, you are required to show cause within three days of receipt of this show‑cause notice as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you under the provisions of Regulation 75(f) of the PIAC Employees (Service and Discipline) Rugulations,1985.
(4) In case you fail to submit your explanation in writing within the stipulated period, it will be presumed that you have admitted the charge and further action as per applicable under Rules and Regulations of the Corporation will be taken against you.
11. (Sd.)
12. (JAVED YOUSUF)
13. GENERAL MANAGER, MATERIAL SUPPORT cc: Director A&MS. cc: General Manager Vigilance
14. ? cc: Manager Material Support Comml.
15. ? cc: Administrative Manager A&MS:'
16. The respondent No. 1 submitted his reply to the show‑cause notice but was not found satisfactory by the competent Authority of the petitioner Corporation. The competent Authority constituted the Enquiry Committee in accordance with the Services and Disciplines Rules of the petitioner Corporation which found respondent No. 1 guilty of charge. Subsequently respondent No. 1 was given further opportunity of personal hearing but he could not explain and satisfy the competent Authority about his misconduct. Keeping in view his length of services, the petitioner instead of dismissing the respondent No. 1, compulsorily retired him from service vide order dated 15‑10‑1989. The respondent No. 1 thereafter on 22‑11‑1989 sent a grievance notice under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called I.R.O.) to the petitioner which was duly replied by them stating that the I.R.O. was not applicable to his case for the reason that when the order for his compulsory retirement was passed on 15‑10‑1989, I.R.O. was not made applicable to the petitioner. However, the respondent No. 1 filed an application being 182 of 1989 under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969 in the Court of IV Sindh Labour Court calling in question his compulsory retirement. The said application was dismissed on merits as well as on the point of jurisdiction by the Labour Court vide order dated 16‑10‑1990. Respondent No. 1 being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal at Karachi, respondent No. 2, who by its order dated 28‑2‑1991 set aside the order passed' by the learned IV Sindh Labour Court at Karachi with direction to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent No. 1 with all back benefits.
17. There is no controversy that subsections (2), (3) and (4) of the Ordinance No. LIII of 1984 of section 10, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956 were omitted by P.IA.C. Amendment Act, 1989 dated 1‑11‑1989. Earlier to the amendment, except a person on deputation, every one' in service of the Corporation was deemed to be civil servant for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and there was a clear bar to applicability of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment‑(Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, to its officers, advisors and employees. The effect of the amendment was that the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 was no more in the field nor there remained any embargo on the applicability of the said Labour Laws to the officers, advisors and employees of the petitioner if otherwise the same extend to them. We are thus left with the short point to consider as to whether the date on which the impugned order was signed though not communicated to the respondent or the date on which it was actually communicated to him was the date of the passing of order. This question will also determine the status of the respondent and the maintainability of the respondent's application under section 25‑A of I.R.O. of 1969.
18. In 1986 SCMR it was held that the judgment is to be dated and signed at the time of pronouncing it. In PLD 1962 SC 97 and PLD 1982 Kar. 250 it was held that merely writing and signing a judgment is not enough, it must be pronounced before it can become effective. Under Order XX, Rule 1, C.P.C. the Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or on some future day, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. In PLD 1976 Lah. 1162, it was held that a judgment shall be pronounced only after due notice is given in accordance with section 142, C.P.C. The order dated 15‑10‑1989 passed by the "the competent Enquiry Committee" which is stated to have decided the fate of the respondent was neither pronounced in the presence of the respondent nor notice thereof was given to him prior to its pronouncement but it was first signed by the competent Authority of the petitioner on 15‑10‑1989 and thereafter on some date it was sent to the respondent No. 1 by post who received it on 4‑11‑1989. We are, therefore, of the view that merely signing of the order by the "Competent Enquiry Committee" shall be of no legal effect unless it is first pronounced in the presence of the party/parties and in case it is not pronounced in his ‑or their presence it shall be deemed to be effective on the date of receipt of the same by Item/them. In the result the petition is dismissed with no order as to cost and we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Court ordering reinstatement of the respondent in service with back benefits.
19. A.A./P-278/K ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition dismissed.