WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus AURANGZEB

ORDER

MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑ As the Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.2021R/87, 207/11/87 and 208111/87 are directed against the judgments of the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad all dated 7th June, 1987, this order will, therefore, dispose of all the three C.P.L.As. mentioned above, all of which arise against similar proceedings resulting in the termination from service of Aurangzeb, respondent in C.P.L.A. 202/11187 and petitioner in C.P.L.As. 207/11187 and 208/11/87.

2. Respondent Aurangzeb (C .P . L. A . 202/ 11187) was appointed Line Superintendent (Grade‑II) on 5‑3‑81 and while working as such his services were terminated vide order dated 24‑3‑81 under clause 2 of the "offer of appointment,. Respondent challenged the said termination in the Punjab Labour Court which resulted in his re instatement with full back benefits. On 22‑8‑81 he was again served with a show cause and a charge‑sheet containing allegation misconduct, and, consequently, per order dated 24‑2‑82 he was dismissed from service. Respondent then filed a grievance petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations ordinance before the Punjab Labour Court which was returned to him for want 01 jurisdiction. Thereupon he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was accepted vide order dated 25‑6‑87 ordering re‑instatement to his previous service as Meter Reader.

3. Order dated 25‑6‑87 is now assailed before us on the ground that the impugned order was passed on 24‑2‑82 and the appeal before the learned Tribunal was filed on 27‑4‑1983 and, therefore, it was hopelessly time‑barred as having been filed after 14 months of the order of dismissal. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a wrong forum chosen by sheer negligence is not a bona fide act, and, therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal on this point is untenable. It was also contended that as the respondent was a 'probationer' and as such his services can be dispensed with on misconduct without any elaborate procedure.

We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and consider that the matter requires re‑examination as points of far‑reaching consequences are involved. We grant leave in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.202/R/87 inter alia on the above grounds.

4. C.P.L.A. No.207/R/87 is directed against the impugned order of the learned Tribunal on the grounds that after accepting the appeal and setting aside the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner dated 24‑2‑82, the learned Tribunal has traveled beyond the scope of the appeal by observing that as the other appeal filed by the petitioner against his termination order dated 24‑3‑81 had been dismissed as being time‑barred by limitation, the obvious result would be that the re‑instatement of the petitioner in service as Line Superintendent (Grade‑II) was not possible although the order of dismissal from service was being set aside.

Facts relevant for the purpose of the questions raised above are that the petitioner was appointed as Line Superintendent (Grade‑II) on 5‑3‑81 while his services were terminated on 24‑3‑81. On the grievance petition filed by the petitioner the Punjab Labour Court set aside the order of termination and directed his re‑instatement in service. The petitioner was, consequently, re‑instated but he was again served with a show‑cause notice, and was ultimately dismissed from service. The petitioner again filed an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 on 13‑4‑82 in the Punjab Labour Court but his application was returned to him on 20‑4‑83 for presentation before the proper forum. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal on 24‑7‑83 and the learned Tribunal, per order dated 7‑6‑87 accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned order observing that re instatement of the petitioner in service was not possible although the order of his dismissal from service impugned in the appeal was being set aside because another appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of termination of service dated 24‑3‑81 had been dismissed as time‑barred.

We have examined the contentions raised by‑the learned counsel and find no substance in them. The impugned judgment has proceeded on correct interpretation of the law applicable. Leave refused and the petition is, consequently, dismissed.

5. C.P.L.A. No.208/R/87, arises out of the same facts as given above in C.P.L.A. No.207/R/87. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Service Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 7‑6‑1987 on the ground that on 11‑4‑1983 the petitioner and his counsel were quite aware of the correct legal position about the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal in the matter; and that the delay occurred thereafter has to be explained and, according to the well settled principle of law, reason for each day's delay has not only to be explained but has also to be substantiated. In such a context, however, the sole submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, injustice done to the petitioner shall be perpetuated and thereby he shall suffer an irreparable loss caused by the impugned order. Learned Tribunal held that the law on the point, however, is well settled that after the prescribed period of limitation has elapsed, the door of justice is closed and no plea of injustice, hardship or ignorance can be of any avail unless the delay is properly explained and accounted for. For these reasons the application for condonation of delay was rejected and, consequently, the appeal was dismissed vide the impugned order.

We have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel and find no substance in them. The impugned order is unexceptionable. Leave refused and the petition is, consequently, dismissed.

M.I./W‑27/S Order accordingly.