SYED ABUL HASAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
These civil petitions for leave to appeal arose from a common judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioners' service appeals as being hopelessly time-barred. The petitioners, former employees of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, had been dismissed from service for misconduct and narcotics smuggling respectively in 1980 and 1991. After pursuing various remedies before labor courts and administrative forums, and following the insertion of section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, they approached the Federal Service Tribunal years later. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners had shown sufficient cause for the immense delay in filing their appeals before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to provide cogent, valid, or convincing justifications for the delay, noting the inadequacy of their affidavits and suspicious medical certificates. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petitions, affirming the Tribunal's finding on limitation.
- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal can be entertained when it is hopelessly barred by time without sufficient cause being shown?
- Does reliance on suspicious and distant medical certificates constitute a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing a service appeal?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969
- Section 2-A, Service Tribunals Act, 1973
HAMID ALI MIRZA, J. ‑‑‑These two civil petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the common judgment dated 21‑4‑2000 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeals Nos.92‑K and 93‑K of 1998, whereby the said appeals were dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner Nisar Ahmad Sheikh, a Flight Steward, in Appeal No.92‑K of 1998 before Federal Service Tribunal, was dismissed from service on 21‑9‑1980 for his act of misconduct. He approached the Sindh Labour Court under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, but his petition was dismissed as per order dated 3‑3‑1981. Upon appeal, the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of petitioner's dismissal and order for a fresh enquiry against the petitioner. Again, the petitioner was dismissed as per order dated 2‑11‑1991. He filed a review petition before Chairman of the respondent corporation and during the pendency of the review, the then Government constituted a Review Board under M.L.R. 52, headed by Chairman NIRC, to hear the like cases of PIAC employees. Though the Board reinstated all such adversely affected employees of respondent corporation, yet due to one reason or other, with the exception of a few, the said employees could not be accommodated. On insertion of section 2‑A in Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the petitioner filed the appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which appeal was heard and dismissed on the ground that it was hopelessly time‑barred.
3. So far petitioner Syed Abul Hasan in Appeal No.93‑K of. 1998, a Flight Purser, he was dismissed from service for his alleged involvement in smuggling of narcotics after service of show‑cause notice dated 31‑8‑1980 and charge‑sheet dated 3‑9‑1980 He pursued his remedies before different forums and ultimately his appeat was dismissed by Federal Service Tribunal by impugned judgment on the ground that it was hopelessly barred by time.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner Syed Abul Hasan in C.P. 294‑K of 2000, petitioner in C.P. 314‑K of 2000 and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. The submission of the learned counsel for petitioner in C.P. 294‑K of 2000 and petitioner in C.P. 314‑K of 2000 is that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the appeals preferred by the petitioners were barred by time when the petitioners had shown sufficient cause for delay in filing their appeals, consequently it has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
5. We do not find any merit and substance in the submission. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record, we are of the opinion that the petitioners have not been able to show sufficient cause in p their respective affidavits seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. Petitioner Syed Abul Hasan in C.P. 294‑K of 2000 has not given any cogent and valid justification for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He has not stated anywhere that during the entire period of his alleged ailment, his state of health did not permit him to move and file the appeal within the stipulated time. Petitioner Nisar Ahmad Sheikh in C.P. No.314‑K of 2000 too in paragraph 3 of his affidavit has not given any cogent and valid reason for delayed filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. It would be worthwhile to note that both the petitioners have filed 'Photostat copies of medical certificates issued by same doctor Shakeel Ahmed of Medical Aid Centre, North Karachi when, as per the addresses given by them, petitioner Syed Abul Hasan is a resident of Model Colony, Karachi and petitioner Nisar Ahmed Sheikh is resident of PECHS Tariq Road Karachi. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we find no merit in these petitions, consequently leave to appeal is refused and the petitions are dismissed.
Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑131/S ??????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? Petition dismissed