Syed ZAHID HUSSAIN and anothers vs UNITED BANK LIMITED and others
This matter concerns the termination of service of the appellants, whose petitions were initially filed before the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Following the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, on June 10, 1997, the Labour Court dismissed the appellants' petitions, directing them to approach the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to condonation of delay for the period spent pursuing remedies in the Labour Court and subsequently filing review petitions, given the prevailing judicial uncertainty regarding the retrospective application of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Supreme Court held that since the law regarding the retrospective operation of Section 2-A was unsettled prior to the Court's decisions in Saeed Aftab Ahmad v. K.E.S.C. and Muhammad Afzal v. K.E.S.C., the appellants' delay was excusable. The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases to the Federal Service Tribunal, directing it to consider the applications for condonation of delay and decide the matters on their merits in accordance with the law.
- Does Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 apply retrospectively to cases pending before a court on the date of its insertion?
- Can delay in filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal be condoned when the appellant was pursuing a remedy in a forum that subsequently lost jurisdiction due to a change in law?
- Is the Federal Service Tribunal required to consider applications for condonation of delay when a case is remanded to it?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance
- Section 2-A, Service Tribunals Act 1973
ORDER
1. ' The services of the appellants in above mentioned 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 Tribunal. 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 above mentioned 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.