Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LTD., KARACHI VS Respondent: GHULAM ABBASHonorable Justice IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRYTariq Asad,Barrister Ch. Muhammad Jamil
2003 P L C (C
2003 P L C (C.S.) 796
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry,. Qazi Muhammad Farooq, Rana Bhagwandas, Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ
CIVIL APPEALS NOS. 533 TO 539 AND 1396 TO 1663 OF 2002.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LTD., KARACHI
Versus
GHULAM ABBAS and others
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 31-5-2001 and 5-4-2002 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeals Nos.1105 (R) to 1110 (R) and 1165 (R) of 1999 and 438 (R)(CE) to 460(R)(CE), 757(R)(CE) to 763(R)(CE), 774(R)(CE), 852(R)(CE) to 858(R)(CE), 860(R)(CE) to 865(R)(CE), 871(R)(CE) to 874(R)(CE), 876(R)(CE) to 877(R)(CE), 879(R)(CE), 881(R)(CE) to 886(R)(CE),. 888(R)(CE), 891(R)(CE) to 893(R)(CE). 895(R)(CE) to 897(R)(CE), 1229(R)(CE) to 1233(R)(CE), 351(R)(CE), 535(R)(CE), 538(R)(CE), 545(R)(CE) 4nd 546(R)(CE), 1099(R)(CE), 734(R)(CE) to 736(R)(CE) of 2000, 363(R)(CE) to 368(R)(CE) of 2001, 642(R)(CE) to 646(R)(CE), 1083(R)(CE), 1168(R)(CE) to 1170(R)(CE), 1181(R)(CE) and 1182(R)(CE); 1205(R)(CE), 658(R)(CE), 659(R)(CE), 976(R)(CE) of 2000, 339(R)(CE) to 341(R)(CE) of 2001, 461(R)(CE) to. 507(R)(CE), 764(R)(CE) to 805(R)(CE), 866(R)(CE) to 869(R)(CE), 899(R)(CE) to 916(R)(CB), 918(R)(CE) to 931(R)(CE), 933(R)(CE), 935(R)(CE), 943(R)(CE), 1234(R)(CE) to 1236(R)(CE), 1274(R)(CE), 1279(R)(CE), 539(R)(CE) to 544(R)(CE), 1097(R)(CE) and 1098(R)(CE), 737(R)(CE) to 739(R)(CE) of 2000, 21(R)(CE), 369(R)(CE) to 372(R)(CE) of 2001, 386(R)(CE) of 2001, 1118(R)(CE) to 1120(R)(CE), 1154(R)(CE), 1166(R)(CE), 1167(R)(CE), 638(R)(CE) to 641(R)(CE), 660(R)(CE), 812(R)(CE), 1158(R)(CE), 1159(R)(CE). 1172(R)(CE), 1202(R)(CE), 656(R)(CE) and 870(R)(CE) of 2000).
CIVIL PETITIONS NOS. 25 TO 44 OF 2002
MUHAMMAD TAHIR ACHAKZAI and others
Versus
MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LTD. and others
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 8-11-2001 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeals No. 4(Q)(CE) to 25(Q)(CE) of 2001).
CIVIL PETITIONS NOS. 1779 TO 1810 AND 1812 OF 2002
MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LTD., KARACHI
Versus
GHULAM SHABBIR and others
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 21-8-2002, 26-8-2002 and 6-9-2002 passed by Federal Service Tribunal in Appeals Nos.89 (K)(CE) to 97(K)(CE), 156(K)(CE) to 225(K)(CE), 230(K)(CE), 231(K)(CE), 235(K)(CE), 247(K)(CE) to 249(K)(CE) of 2001 and 230(K)(CE) of 1999).
CIVIL PETITIONS NOS. 1850, 1861 TO 1914, 1992 TO 2040, 2051 TO 2100, 2117 TO 2161, 2169 TO 2317 AND 2327 OF 2002
MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LTD.
Versus
MUHAMMAD SALEH and others
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 29-7-2002, passed by Federal Service Tribunal in Appeals Nos. 109(R)(CE), 352(R)(CE), 509(R)(CE) to 537(R)(CE), 547(R)(CE) to 549(R)(CE), 647(R)(CE) to 655(R)(CE), 740(R)(CE) to 754(R)(CE), 806(R)(CE) to 808(R)(CE). 811(R)(CE), 937(R)(CE) to 942(R)(CE), 944(R)(CE) to 1060(R)(CE), 1082(R)(CE), 1084(R)(CE) to 1095(R)(CE), I100(R)(CE) to 1103(R)(CE), 1109(R)(CE), 1114(R)(CE), 1115(R)(CE), 1121(R)(CE) to 1153(R)(CE); 1155(R)(CE) to 1157(R)(CE), 1164(R)(CE), 1165(R)(CE), 1171(R)(CE), 1173(R)(CE), 1180(R)(CE), 1191(R)(CE) to 1201(R)(CE), 1203(R)(CE), 1204(R)(CE), 1209(R)(CE) to 1228(R)(CE), 1239(R)(CE), to 2000 620R(R)(CW), 22(R) (WE) to127(R)R(CW)) 330(R)(CW) to 338(R)(CW), 376(R)(CW) to 380(R)(CW),.342(R)(CW) to 347(R)(CW), 349(R)(CW), 361(R)(CW), 392(R)(CW) to 402(R)(CW), 405(R)(.CW), 406(R)(CW), 454(R)(CW) to 472(R)(CW), 505(R)(CW), 506(R)(CW), 509(R)(CW), 513(R)(CW), 514(R)(CW), 519(R)(CW), 526(R)(CW), 527(R)(CW), 529(R)(CW), 533(R)(CW) to 535 of 2001).
CIVIL PETITIONS NOS.762 TO 765, 1219 TO 1225, 1242 TO 1244, 1294 TO 1298, 1364 TO 1366 OF 2002 AND 2792 TO 2798 AND 2801 OF 2001,
Engr: MUHAMMAD NAWAZ PANHWAR
and others
Versus
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another
(On appeal from the judgments/orders dated 29-3-2002, 16-4-2002, 14-5-2002, 27-7-2001, passed by Federal Service Tribunal in Appeals Nos, 544(K)(CE), 550(K)(CE), 551(K)(CE), 710(K)(CE)?575(K)(CE) 577(K)(CE), 632(K)(CE), 575(K)(CE), 577(K)(CE); 632(K)(CE), 639(K)(CE), 641(K)(CE) 576(K)(CE), 633(K)(CE), 640(K)(CE) of 2000, alongwith 252(K)(CE), 253(K)(CE), 260(K)(CE), 261(K)(CE), 262(K)(CE), 266(K)(CE), 508(K)ECE), 254(K)(CE), 258(K)(CE), 265(K)(CE), 895(K)(CE) to 902(K),(CE) of 2001).
CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO. 420 OF 2001
MAKHDOOM TANVIR AHMAD
Versus
MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LTD.
(On review from the judgment of this Court dated 22nd October, 2001 passed in Civil Petition No.985 of 2001).
CIVIL REVIEW PETITIONS NOS, 421 AND 431 OF 2001.
Dr. ANWAR ALI SANTO and others
Versus
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others
(On review from the judgment of this Court dated 22nd October, 2001 passed in Civil Appeals Nos. 366, 374, 376 and 367 of 2001).
CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.426 OF 2001
MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others
Versus
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others
(On review from the judgment of this Court dated 22nd October, 2001 passed in Civil Petitions Nos. 745 to 760 of 2001).
CIVIL REVIEW PETITIONS NOS. 427, 428, 430 AND 432 OF 2001
MUNAWAR ALI and others
Versus
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others
(On review from the judgment of this Court dated 22nd October, 2001 passed in Civil Appeals Nos. 613 to 637, 1877 to 1881, 1883 to 1886, 1889, 1890, 1892 to 1894, 1896, 1900, 1901, 1905, 1908 to 1911, 1913, 1914, 1916, 1917, 1920, 1934 to 1946, 1949, 1951, 1953, 1954, 1956, 1960, 1962 to 1967, 1969, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977 to 1983, 1985, 1988, 1190 to 1992, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2004 to 2007, 2009, 2013, 2014, 2016 to 2022, 2026, 2027, 2029, 2030, 2032, 2035, 2037, 2038, 2040, 2043 to 2051, 2053, 2055, 2057, 2058, 2061 to 2067, 648 to 654 of 2001 and C. P. No. 120 of 2001). .
CIVIL REVIEW PETITION N0.429 OF 2001
EJAZ ALI MUGHERI and others
Versus
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others
(On review from the judgment of this Court dated 22nd October, 2001 passed in Civil Petitions Nos. 1-263 to 1284, 1286 to 1290, 1292, 1293 , 1295 to 1341 of 2001).
Civil Appeals Nos.533 to 539, 1396 to 1663 of 2002, Civil Petitions Nos.25 to 44, 1779 to 1810, 1812, 1850, 1861 to 1914, 1992 to 2040, 2051 to 2100, 2117 to 2161, 2169 to 2317, 2327, 762 to 765, 1219 to 1225, 1242 to 1244, 1294 to 1298, 1364 to 1366 of 2002, 2792 to 298, 2801 of 2001, Civil Review Petitions Nos. 420, 421, 431, 426, 427, 428, 430, 432 and 429 of 2001, decided on 2nd May, 2003.
(a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)-----
----S. 5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to consider whether Federal Service Tribunal while exercising powers conferred upon it under S.5, Service Tribunals Act, 1973 viz. to confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against, could direct the employer-Company for regularisation/absorption of the employees of the Company; whether one member of the Service Tribunal having already retired from service could sit as a member of the Tribunal and whether his sitting in the Bench rendered the impugned judgment as coram non judice, unlawful and without jurisdiction and whether the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of the Managing Director, Sui Northern Gas Co. Ltd. v. Saleem Mustafa Shaikh and others PLD 2001 SC 176; Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. v. Engr. Naraindas and others PLD 2001 SC 555 and Abdul Samad v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2002 SCMR 71 was correctly appreciated and applied by the Service Tribunal.
(b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)------
----S. 3-A---Benches of the Tribunal---While conducting hearing the status of a Chairman was also of a Member; whereas S.3-A(2)(a) & (b) of the Act, provided that the decisions were to be pronounced by the majority of the Members and in case of division between Members of the Bench or in case of equal division of the Members, the case shall be referred to the Chairman and whatever opinion was expressed by him, would have supremacy and constitute the decision of the Tribunal--?Judgment, in the present case, had been authored by the Chairman and all the members had concurred with him, therefore, presuming that one member joined the proceedings without lawful authority but nevertheless said judgment could sustain, as the same had been rendered by the Bench comprising more than two members of the Tribunal and apprehension of influencing the judgment by the said Member (retired) stood excluded as the judgment was authored by a former Judge of the High Court being the Chairman of the Service Tribunal and could be treated to have been delivered validly under de facto doctrine---Said Member, immediately before his retirement had been performing .same functions, therefore, it would be deemed that in exercise of the same powers in good faith be associated himself in the proceedings---Inclusion of the said Member as .member of the Bench, had also not caused prejudice to any of the parties because he had not authored the judgment nor there was any likelihood of his having influenced the judgment in any manner as the same was authored by the Chairman and remaining two Members of the Bench had concurred with him:
Constitutional Limitations by Colly, 8th Edn., Vol.2, p.137; Lt.-Col. Farzand Ali and others v. Province of West Pakistan through Secretary, Department of Agriculture PLD 1970 SC 98; Gikaraju Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 1473 and Malik Asad Ali and others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 161 quoted.
(c) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---
----Ss. 4 &. 2-A---Sui Southern Gas Transmission Company Limited Executive Service Rules, 1982, Rr. 6.1, 6.2 & 6.3----Appeal--?Jurisidetion of Service Tribunal---Scope---Probationers, who were put to jobs in pursuance of letters by the Government which controlled Employer Company had served in their respective capacity for a period of more than 4/5 years entirely to the satisfaction of employer and nothing adverse had been brought against them on record---Employer, abruptly vide letters of different dates, issued orders of discontinuation of their assignments--Service Tribunal allowed the appeals of such probationers against the order of the employer---Validity---Employer Company, on completion of initial period of one year, extendable for another period of one year, under Rr. 6.1, 6.2 & 6.3 of the Sui 'Southern Gas Transmission Company Limited Executive Service Rules 1982 was bound either to terminate services of the probationers if their work and conduct were found unsatisfactory or to confirm them against the posts which were held by them---Probationers had completed successfully their period of probation as letter of termination did not indicate that on account of their unsatisfactory performance, they. were removed from service---Probationers, therefore, on having completed the period -of 2 years of probation successfully would be deemed to have attained the status of civil servants for the purpose of S.2-.A, Service Tribunals Act, 1973, conferring thereby jurisdiction upon the Service Tribunal to grant them relief under S.4, Service Tribunals Act, 1973---Principles.
On completion of initial period of one year, extendable for another period of one year, under Rules 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of the Executive Service Rules of the Sui Southern Gas Co. Ltd: the Employer Company was bound either to terminate the services of the probationers if their work and conduct were found unsatisfactory or to confirm them against the posts which were held by them. The probationers had completed successfully their period of probation as the letter of termination of their services did not indicate that on account of their unsatisfactory performance, they were removed from service, therefore, on having completed the period of 2 years of probation successfully it would be deemed that they had attained the status of civil servants for the purpose of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, conferring thereby jurisdiction upon Service Tribunal to grant them relief under section 4 of the said Act; 1973.
Since the question relating to the termination of. services of the probationers related to the terms and conditions of their service, they were free to approach Service Tribunal for redress of their grievance.
Right to approach the Service Tribunal by an employee of an Authority, Corporation, Body or Organization, established by or under the Federal Law or which was owned or controlled by Federal Government or in which Federal Government had controlling shares or interest was conferred vide section 2-A inserted by means of Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 1997 w.e.f 10th June, 1997, according to which the employees of such Corporation, etc. would be deemed to be civil servants for the purpose of Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
Benefit of section 2-A was not extendable only to regular employees of such Organization but also to the employees who were on contract or workmen Distinction may be noted that under the Civil Servants Act, an employee, who was working on contract basis, does not fall within the definition of civil servant but by promulgating section 2-A of the Act, 1973 such right had been conferred upon the contract employees as well as on workmen.
If an employee who is in the employment on contract or enjoys status of workman in the organization is covered by section 2-A of the Act, 1973 and is deemed to be a civil servant, then why the probationers who had completed the period of probation of two years under the Executive Service Rules of Sui Southern Gas Co. Ltd. successfully could not be treated to be civil servants, eligible to seek relief from the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Act, 1973.
There should not be any doubt in any manner of whatsoever nature that the Employer Company had framed these rules itself, therefore, it was bound to follow the same. The Company was bound to confirm/absorb/regularize the probationers, if they had completed the probation period satisfactorily. Since in, the present cases, probationers were allowed to hold the posts assigned to them on completion of training of six months, for a period of more than two. years, therefore, presumption would be that on having completed the period of probation satisfactorily, they had acquired the status of regular employees of the Company, being controlled by the Government, and they would be deemed to be the civil servants under section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1993. Thus, Service Tribunal had entertained their appeals lawfully under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
Managing Director, SW Northern Gas Co. Ltd. v. Saleem Mustafa Sheikh and others PLD 2001 SC 176; Abdul Samad v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2002 SCMR 71; Engineer Narain Das and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2002 SCMR 82; Dr. Anwar Ali Sahto and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2002 SC 101 and Zahir Ullah and 13 others v. Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and others 2000 SCMR 826.ref.
(d) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)----
----Ss. 5 & 4---Powers of Service Tribunal ---Scope---Appeal--?Expressions 'confirm', 'set aside' or 'modify the order appealed against' and 'vary'---Connotation---Contention of the employer was that Service Tribunal could not order absorption in service of an employee while deciding an appeal---Validity---Service Tribunal, had vast jurisdiction to redress the grievance of the person before it---Service Tribunal, in the present case, had given such direction in the context of termination order and it had not determined the fitness or otherwise of the employees to be appointed or to hold a particular post, contention, therefore, was misconceived and the Service Tribunal had not exceeded its jurisdiction-?Principles.
Adverting to the question whether an employee can be ordered to be absorbed in the service by the Tribunal while deciding an appeal, the expressions used in section 5(1) of the Act namely confirm, set aside or modify the order appealed against, are understandable in ordinary sense but expression "vary" needs to be defined to ascertain the powers of Tribunal. As per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary "vary" includes the meaning of 'to undergo change or alteration, to pass from one condition, state etc. to another, to differ in respect of statement to give-?-Undoubtedly if this definition is accepted there would be no difficulty in concluding that the Service Tribunal had vast jurisdiction to redress the grievance of the person before it.
Powers of Service Tribunal tinder section 5 of the Act are very wide and all questions of laws and facts arising therein are open to be gone into by the Tribunal. The Service Tribunal while hearing such an appeal has full power to confirm, alter, set aside or modify the order of Departmental Authority keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice.
Tribunal had very wide powers and all questions of law arising therein can be gone into by the Tribunal and the only limitation on the powers of the Service Tribunal is that it should satisfy the test of reasonableness.
Tribunal had given such direction in context of termination order and it had not determined the fitness or otherwise of the employees to be appointed or to hold a particular post and the contention that Service Tribunal could not order to absorb the employees in service was misconceived and the Tribunal had not exceeded its jurisdiction.
In the present case, the probationers, on completion of training period, were entitled to change over to regular employment of the Company because they had successfully completed their training and such incorporation to regular cadre had become necessary because despite of completing training period of six months they were not being absorbed against regular cadre of the company and their fate was hanging fire despite the tact that they had also completed the period of probation entirely to the satisfaction of the employer as termination order of service disclosed nothing adverse against, them. Thus-in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant such relief.
The probationers naturally had an expectation of posting after the completion of pre-service training of six months but the company for one reason or the other did not absorb them against the regular cadre and kept the running from pillar to post but without any, success as ultimately after lapse of 7/8 years when they had become over-age to join arty Government service in Pakistan they were shown door with ulterior motives for no other reason except that till then their absorption in the regular cadres had become 'mandatory. Therefore, simpliciter reinstatement of the probationer in service by the Service Tribunal would have not met the ends of justice. As such in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Tribunal directions were made to absorb the employees of Company into the regular cadres.
Shorter Exford English Dictionary; Pakistan Railways through General Manager v. Ghulam Rasool 1997 SCMR 1581; Dr. Anwar Ali Sahto and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2002 SC 101; Managing Director, Sui Northern Gas Co. Ltd. v. Saleem Mustafa Sheikh and others PLD 2001 SC 176; Engineer Narain Das and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2002 SCMR 82 and Abdul Samad v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2002 SCMR 71 ref.
Mian Abdul Malik v. Dr. Sabir Zamer Siddiqui and 4 others 1991 SCMR 1129; Z.A. Javed Raja v. Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 3 others 1996 PLC (C.S.) 360 and Abdul Baqi and others v. Muhammad Akram and others PLD 2003 SC 143 distinguished.
(e) Civil service----
---- Terms "reinstatement" and "absorption" were distinct and different from each other---[Dr. Anwar Ali Sahto and others v. Federation of Pakistan sand others PLD 2002 SC 101 dissented from].
Terms `reinstatement' and `absorption' are distinct and different from each other, even as per dictionary meanings. As far as reinstatement is concerned it would mean to restore or replace in last position, privileges, etc., whereas absorption means disappearance through incorporation in something else.
Dr. Anwar Ali Sahto and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2002 SC 101 dissented from.
(f) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)----
----Ss. 4 & 5---Sui Southern Gas Transmission Company Limited Executive Services Rules,. 1982, Rr. 6.1, 6.2 & 6.3---Cases of all employees of Sui Southern Gas Transmission Company Ltd. covered by Sui Southern Gas Transmission Company Ltd. Executive Service Rules, 1982, notwithstanding the fact whether they were appointed as Trainee Engineers or Management Trainees or in any other capacity, were covered by the binding effect of Supreme Court judgment in Managing Director, Sui Southern Gas Co. Ltd. v. Saleem Mustafa Shaikh PLD 2001 SC 176.
Managing Director. Sui Northern Gas Co. Ltd. v. Saleem Mustafa Sheikh and others PLD 2001 SC 176 ref.
(g) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---
----Ss.4 & 5---Sui Southern Gas Transmission Company Limited Executive Service Rules. 1982, Rr.6.1, 6.2 & 6.3---Appointments of probationer, in the present case, were made with reference to their applications and subsequent tests/interviews which meant that they were also recruited on merits---Contention of the employer company that probationers got their appointments due to political influence did not seem to be correct in view of the procedure followed in giving the appointments to them, however, for any flaw or defect in the appointments as far as the probationers were concerned, they could not be blamed.
Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. Zakat/Social Welfare Department, Peshawar and another v. Sadullah Khan 1996 SCMR 413 and Abdul Hafeez Abbasi and others v. Managing Director, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Karachi and others 2002 SCMR 1034 ref.
(h) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---
----Ss.2-A & 4----Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S.2(2)---Sui Southern Gas Transmission Company Limited Executive Service Rules, 1982, Rr.6.1, 6.2 & 6.3---Appeal---Employees of the Company were not governed by statutory rules-neither they were civil servants as per its definition under S.2(2), Civil Servants Act, 1973 nor there was any provision in their Service Rules for filing appeal/representation--?They were covered by S.2-A, Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and were not obliged to file departmental appeal before approaching the Service Tribunal for redressal of their grievances.
Syed Aftab Ahmad and others v: K.E.S.C. 1999 SCMR 197; Dr. Anwar Ali Sahto and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2002 SC 101 and Abdul Hafeez Abbasi and others v. Managing Director, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Karachi and others 2002 SCMR 1034 ref.
(i) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---
----Ss. 2-A & 4---Appeal---Civil servant under the provision of S.2-A, Service Tribunals Act, 1973 can directly approach the Service Tribunal within 30 days under SA(1), Service Tribunals Act. 1973 after passing of original order without filing departmental appeal or representation under S.4, proviso of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
Syed Aftab Ahmad and others v. K.E.S.C. 1999 SCMR 197; Dr. Anwar Ali Sahto and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2002 SC 101 and Abdul Hafeez Abbasi and others v. Managing Director, Pakistan -International Airlines Corporation, Karachi and others 2002 SCMR 1034 ref.
(j) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---
----S.4(1)---Sui Southern Gas Transmission Company Limited Executive Service Rules, 1982, Rr.6.1, 6.7 & 6.3---appeal by employees of the company ---Limitation---Condonation of delay---If an employee of the company had filed a departmental appeal or representation, departmental appeal or representation being not competent, if some delay had been caused due to waiting the result of representation the same was liable to be condoned.
Government of Sindh v. Masood Hussain 2002 PLC (C.S.) 752 ref.
(k) Limitation-----
---- Administration of justice---Decision of the cases on merits always to be encouraged instead of non-suiting the litigants for technical reasons including on limitation.
Muhammad Yaqub v. Pakistan Petroleum Limited and another 2000 SCMR 830; Messrs Pakistan State Oil Company Limited v. Muhammad Tahir Khan and others PLD 2001 SC 980; Teekam Das M. Haseja, Executive Engineer, WAPDA v. Chairman, WAPDA 2002…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.