PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS vs SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 3 others
This civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was directed against an order dated 10-03-2000 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal in limine on the ground of limitation. The respondent employee, dismissed as a Security Guard, secured reinstatement via the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner challenged that reinstatement in a constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court. Following the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act 1973 (notified on 10-06-1997), the employee became a civil servant and the pending constitutional petition abated, with formal disposal recorded on 10-02-2000. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal well beyond the prescribed 90-day limitation period. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was clearly time-barred and that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause or account for each day's delay to justify condonation. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused and the petition was dismissed.
- Does a pending constitutional petition abate upon the insertion of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 rendering the employee a civil servant?
- Is an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal barred by time if not preferred within the prescribed ninety-day limitation period following abatement?
- Can delay in filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal be condoned without sufficient explanation accounting for each day's delay?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance
- Section 2-A, Service Tribunals Act 1973
ORDER
' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order, dated 10- 3-2000 passed by Federal Service Tribunal at Karachi in Appeal No,84(K) (Corp. E/2000) whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed in limine on the ground that the same was barred by time.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No,4, Syed Umed Ali Shah, was employed by the petitioner as Security Guard and was dismissed, which action of the petitioner was challenged by respondent No,4 through a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance before the Labour Court, which petition was dismissed by the said Labour Court, consequently, said respondent preferred an appeal before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which was allowed as per order, dated 30-9-1991, against which order the petitioner approached Sindh High Court in Constitutional Petition No,D-1571 of 1991 for setting aside the order of respondent No,1, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which petition was disposed of as having abated on 10-2-2000 because of insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The petitioner preferred the service appeal before the Service Tribunal, which was heard and disposed of as per impugned order.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No,4, who appeared in person, and perused the record.
4. Admittedly, respondent No,4 being an employee of the petitioner became civil servant because of insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, which provision was notified on 10-6-1997. In view of the said Notification Constitutional Petition No,D-1571 of 1991 pending before Sindh High Court at Karachi abated. However, formal orders in the said Constitutional petition were passed on 10-2-2000 by the Sindh High Court petitioner did not approach the Federal Service Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation of 90 days, consequently, the appeal was admittedly time- barred. No sufficient explanation for condonation of delay was shown by the petitioner. No exception can be taken to the finding of the Tribunal holding that the appeal was barred by time, considering that each day's delay was not accounted for. We also, in the circumstances, find no merits in the petition, therefore, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.