Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD IQBAL CHAUDHRY VS Respondent: SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTANHonorable Justice IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRYMalik Muhammad Qayyum,Hafiz S.A.
2004 P L C (C
2004 P L C (C.S.) 896
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, and Rana Bhagwandas, JJ
MUHAMMAD IQBAL CHAUDHRY and another
Versus
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others
Civil Petitions Nos.3837‑L and 3840‑L of 2002, decided on 23rd February, 2004.
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 13‑9‑2002 passed by Federal Service Tribunal in Appeals Nos.1748(I) and 1540(I) of 1998).
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Judgment passed by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Non‑speaking order‑‑‑Although pleadings of the parties had been reproduced through and through but the contentions of the parties and points on which they were resting their cases were not .taken into consideration at all by the Service Tribunal‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Forums seized with the judicial matters are required to pass such a speaking judgment that it should give impression to readers that the legal, and factual aspects of the case which were raised before it for the purpose of decision, had been considered and decided in the light of recognized principles of law on the subject instead of disposing of in ‑slipshod manner‑‑‑In the instant case both the sides stated that instead of allowing the petition to remain pending on the file of Supreme Court, if leave was granted, the case be remanded to Service Tribunal for fresh decision after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and the case was remanded to Service Tribunal for decision afresh‑‑‑Appeal was allowed.
Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court, Shaukat Ali Mehr, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on -Record (absent) for Petitioners (in both Cases).
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Dy. A.‑G. for Respondent No. 1.
Maqbool Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court, and Mehmood‑ul -Islam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Date of hearing: 23rd February, 2004.
JUDGMENT
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑These petitions have been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 13th September, 2002 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby appeals filed by petitioners have been dismissed.
2. There is no need to marshal the facts of the case in detail because with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties while going through the impugned judgment we have noted that Service Tribunal had not dilated upon the respective contentions of the parties counsel put forward before it and had decided the cases by just making general remarks about the conduct of the petitioners.
3. It may be noted that the forums seized with the judicial matters are required to pass such a speaking judgment that it should give an impression to readers that the legal and factual aspects of the, case which were raised before it for the purpose of decision have been considered and decided in the light of recognized principles of law on the subject instead of disposing of in slipshod manner.
4. We have noted with great concern that in instant cases although the pleadings of the parties had been reproduced through and through but the contentions of the parties and the points on which they were resting their cases were not taken into consideration at all. Be that as it may, in these circumstances, both the sides stated that instead of allowing the petitions to remain pending on the file, if leave is granted, the cases may be remanded to the Service Tribunal for fresh decision after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove.
Thus for the foregoing reasons, petitions are converted into appeals and allowed. Cases are remitted to the Service Tribunal for expeditious disposal as far as possible within a period of three months preferably.
M.H./M‑53/S Cases remanded.