Haji MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus P.I.A.

FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---In this petition by Haji Muhammad Akram, former Canteen Supervisor, PIA has raised grievance that he was removed from service on 11-8-1982 under clauses 6 and 11 of Martial Law Order No, 52 alongwith about 4000 other employees. On 20th May, 1989 the Government issued a notification constituting a Review Board headed by Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission for reviewing the cases of employees of industrial and commercial establishments set up, managed or controlled by the Government who were removed under Martial Law Regulations etc. The Board was empowered to make its recommendation to the Federal Government. The Board on consideration of these individual cases recommended re-instatement of about 3000 employees vide order dated 8-8- 1989. In pursuance of such recommendations some of the employees have been reemployed but petitioner has not been re-instated in spite of orders dated 24-5-1990 and 10-1-1991.

Comments called for have been received from General Manager (Local Services), PIA. The petitioner in person and the learned counsel for the respondent have been heard.

The petitioner alongwith about 4000 other serving with P.IA, was removed from service under the Policy Directive to shed non-air line functions. The petitioner was informed vide letter No, PER/P/111781/PO(A)/82, dated 31-7-1982 that his services were no longer required. The petitioner was paid all the normal terminal benefits admissible under the rules and enumerated in the termination letter referred to above.

It is the respondent's case that the Board sent those petitions to the authorities but no action was taken as the Board had made no recommendation one way or the other. The employees, therefore, made a petition under section 2(3) of IRO, 1969 before N.I.R.C. Muhammad Akhtar the learned Senior Member of N.I.R.C. On 24-5-1990 passed a consent order to the effect that those whose services have been terminated be re-employed on the minimum of their basic scale of pay. The aforementioned order was appealed against by the P.IA. Before the Full Bench of National Industrial Commission (Appeal No, 12 (101) of 1990) on the ground that the order dated 24-5-1990 based on compromise statement of the counsel for the, P.I.A. Was unwarranted. This appeal was, however, dismissed on 10-1-1991. In this background of the case it is evident that petitioner kept quiet since 1982 till 1989 and for the first time agitated the matter when the Board was constituted for hearing the grievances of the terminated employees and for giving their recommendations. The jurisdiction of the Board was that of recommendatory body and such recommendations had to be placed before the Government. In the instant case, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner's case was sent to the Government for his reinstatement in view of the orders of N.I.R.C. As stated above but the Government did not accept reemployment of the petitioner on the ground that he was an old man and that he had been paid all the dues under the policy of "golden hand shake" some 10 years back. In the circumstances no case of Human Rights violation of public importance and of great urgency being involved the petition is dismissed as incompetent.