MEHRULLAH and another vs MANAGING DIECTOR, SUI SOUTHERN GAS CO.
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' service appeals as time-barred. The petitioners, formerly employed as Trainee Engineers on a temporary basis by the respondent company, had their services terminated in 1999. Following the dismissal of their departmental appeals, they approached the Tribunal after a significant delay. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal correctly refused to condone the delay in filing the service appeals and whether the termination of temporary employees without a show-cause notice warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to provide any plausible explanation for the 453-day delay in filing their appeals before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals as hopelessly time-barred. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of a cogent and plausible explanation for a substantial delay, a court or tribunal is justified in refusing to condone the delay, particularly when the underlying service matter lacks questions of general public importance.
- Is a delay of 453 days in filing a service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal excusable without a plausible explanation?
- Does the dismissal of an appeal on the grounds of limitation constitute a legal error if no cogent reasons for delay are provided?
- Does the termination of a temporary employee without a show-cause notice automatically entitle them to relief if their appeal is time-barred?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against a common judgment, dated 17-5-2002 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) passed in Appeals Nos. 646, 647, 649, 749 and 750(K)(CE) of 2000, whereby their appeals were dismissed being time-barred.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners, namely, Mehrullah and Anwar Hussain were appointed as Trainee Engineers on 19-9-1995 and 27-9-1995, respectively, on temporary basis for working on some new projects and further for temporary requirement of the respondent Company.
Subsequently, their temporary assignments were discontinued through letter, dated 10-3-1999.
Petitioners being aggrieved with their termination order, preferred departmental appeals, but the same remained unresponded. Thereafter, they filed the appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and carefully scanning the record, dismissed their appeals as mentioned hereinabove. Hence this petition.
3. Mr. Muhammad Muzaffarul Hague, learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the petitioner's services were terminated without issuing Show-Cause Notice to them; and that their services were not required by the respondent-Company. Admittedly, the appeals were barred by time but the Tribunal under the circumstances should have condoned the delay in the interest of justice and that the petitions may be accepted.
4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have carefully examined the available record. Admittedly, the petitioners departmental appeals were dismissed on 6-4-1999. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Tribunal on 14-11-2000, which show that the same were filed after the delay of about 453 days. No plausible explanation whatsoever has been mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. The appointments of the petitioners were temporary in nature. The Tribunal, after considering the application of condonation of delay and averments of the petitioners and hearing the parties with sound, cogent and legal grounds dismissed their appeals being hopelessly time-barred.
5. The impugned judgment, in our considered opinion, is based on the law raid down by this Court.
Furthermore, there is no illegality, irregularity, misreading, or non-reading of material available on record. The question of general public importance as contemplated under Article 212(3) of the Constitution is also not involved.
6. For the facts, circumstances and reasons mentioned hereinabove, we are of the considered view, that the petitions are without merit and substance, which are hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.