SIBTE AKHTAR vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION through Managing Director
This matter arises from a petition filed against the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal on the ground of limitation. The petitioner, a former employee of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, had his services terminated in 1981, reinstated through compensation in 1990 which he accepted without protest, and subsequently in 1999 sought higher grouping and seniority. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing his appeal as time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the petition was rightly dismissed as the petitioner had slept over his rights for nine years, which is not a reasonable time to agitate a grievance, regardless of the applicability of departmental regulations. The key principle laid down is that stale claims and belated representations made after an unreasonable lapse of time, such as nine years, cannot be entertained by courts or tribunals.
- Whether a service appeal filed after an unexplained delay of nine years is barred by time?
- Does a belated representation made after accepting compensation revive a stale employment claim?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a tribunal order dismissing an appeal on the ground of laches?
- Regulation 86(2), P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985
' RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.---Facts leading to the filing of this petition are that petitioner was an employee of respondent-Corporation. His services were terminated in the year 1981 but thereafter in 1989, on his representation before the Review Board, his termination was set aside. The respondent-Corporation gave him an offer either to join the service or get compensation. The petitioner opted for the compensation which was duly paid to him in the year 1990. The petitioner being satisfied with the compensation did not agitate the matter any further. However, in 1999 he made a representation before the respondent-Corporation to the effect that he should have been retired in Group-VII instead of Group-VI and also claimed seniority as was given to some of his juniors. The representation made by the petitioner failed. He then approached the Federal Service Tribunal but his appeal was dismissed on the sole ground that it was hopelessly barred by time, therefore, the present petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Regulation 86(2) of P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985 was not applicable to his case, therefore, his petition before the Tribunal was not barred by time. Argued that the learned Tribunal should have decided the matter on merits. The above contentions, on the other hand, were opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent-caveator.
3. We have heard the learned counsel and gone through the order impugned with their assistance.
Without giving any finding regarding application of P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline)
Regulations, it is observed that the petitioner slept over his so-called right for 9 years and thereafter, woke up and started agitating for the same. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument, that P.I.A.C. Regulations were not applicable, the petitioner should have made the representation within reasonable time and period of 9 years is certainly not a reasonable time. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity of law in the order impugned which could prompt us to interfere with the same. Resultantly, this petition fails which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.