Syed ZAHID HUSSAIN and another vs UNITED BANK LIMITED and others
This appeal concerns the termination of services of the appellants on October 2, 1996, and the subsequent jurisdictional shift regarding their employment grievances. The appellants initially approached the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Following the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, on June 10, 1997, the Labour Court dismissed their petitions, directing them to the Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to have their cases heard by the Federal Service Tribunal, despite delays caused by pursuing remedies in the Labour Court and subsequent review petitions. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, have retrospective operation, applying to all cases pending before any court on the date of its insertion. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases to the Federal Service Tribunal, directing it to consider the appellants' applications for condonation of delay and decide the matters in accordance with the law.
- Does Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 apply retrospectively to cases pending before other courts at the time of its enactment?
- Is the Federal Service Tribunal required to consider applications for condonation of delay when a litigant has pursued a misconceived remedy in the Labour Court?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
- Section 2-A, Service Tribunals Act 1973
ORDER
1. ' The services of the appellants in abovementioned appeals were terminated on 2-10-1996. They approached the Labour Court under section 25-A of I.R.O. On 30-11-1996. It is not disputed that on 10th June, 1997 when section 2-A was inserted in Service Tribunal Act, 1973 their cases were pending before the Labour Court. According to appellants the Labour Court dismissed the petitions on 8-5- 1998 with the direction to the appellants to approach the Service Thbunal. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the appellants after dismissal of their cases by Labour Court instead of approaching the Federal' Service Tribunal, filed review petitions before he Labour Court which was also dismissed and as such they could not claim condonation of delay having resorted to a misconceived remedy.
2. ' Be that as it may, there is no denial of the fact that prior to the decision of this Court in cases of Saeed Aftab Ahmad v. K.E.S.C. And Muhamamd Afzal v, K.E.S.C. Reported in 1999 SCM R 197 and 1999 SCM R 92 respectively the view expressed by the Tribunal was that section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act being prospective in operation, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in cases where termination of service of an employee had taken place prior to 10th June, 1997. This view was set aside by this Court in the abovementioned two cases and it was held that provisions of section 2-A are retrospective in its operation and applied to all cases where proceedings were pending before any Court on the date of insertion of section 2-A. The appellant had filed applications for condonation of delay in both the cases before the Service Tribunal which it appears were not considered.
3. ' We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the impugned orders and remand the cases to the Federal Service Tribunal for decision on the applications for condonation and the cases in the light of the above observations in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Cited by 1 case
- MANAGING DIRECTOR, (POWER), WAPDA, WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE and 2 2003 PLC (C.S.) 386