Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: IJAZ AHMAD VS Respondent: THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
1990 P L C (C
1990 P L C (C.S.) 697
[Lahore High Court]
Before Ihsan-ul-Haq Chaudry, J
IJAZ AHMAD and 2 others
Versus
THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
through Secretary, Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 4 others
Writ Petition No. 2524 of 1990, decided on 16th April, 1990.
(a) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974).-
---S. 4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212---Jurisdiction---Termination of services---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Invocation barred---Civil servants neither assailed order of termination before departmental authority nor impugned the same before Service Tribunal, which had exclusive jurisdiction in the matter---Jurisdiction of High Court was barred under Art. 212 of the Constitution.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--
---Art. 199---Civil service---Termination of services---Delay in filing Constitutional petition---Effect---Constitutional petition to assail order of termination of services after one ye of passing of order---No explanation for such delay was offered---Delay of more than six months in service cases was sufficient to constitute laches and to refuse relief.
(c) Law Reports Act (XVIII of 1875)--
---S. 3 [amended by Law Reports (Amendment) Act (1I of 1990)]---Law Report not published under authority of Provincial Government---Effect---No Court was bound to receive or treat a report of any case which was not published under the authority of a Provincial Government, as binding on it---Section 3 of the Act was however applicable only in respect of reports of cases of High Court, and not of Supreme Court.
(d) Law Reports Act (XVIII of 1875)--
---Ss. 5 & 6 [added by Law Reports (Amendment) Act (11 of 1990)]---Sections 5 & 6, Law Reports Act are applicable to all Courts including Federal Shariat Courts, Service Tribunals, Income-tax Appellate Tribunals and National Industrial Relations Commission.
Mian Muhammad Nawaz for Petitioners.
ORDER
The petitioners through this petition have prayed for declaration that impugned order dated 28-2-1989 is illegal, void and without jurisdiction etc.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as Malis in Education Department. They joined service on 22-1-1989 and 17-1-1989 respectively while petitioner No. 3 was appointed as Chaukidar and he reported for duty on 17-1-1989. It is submitted that they performed duty diligently. The grievance of the petitioners is that their services have been terminated through impugned letter.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the petition has argued that the impugned order is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. It is added that in similar circumstances this Court has accepted Writ Petitions Nos. 1575 and 6167 of 1989.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record as well as precedent cases. The petitioners neither assailed the impugned order before the departmental authority nor impugned the same before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which has the exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. The impugned order is dated 28-2-1989 while this petition has been filed on 11-4-1990. There is no explanation for a period of over one year. This Court has already held that delay g of more than 6 months in service matter is sufficient to constitute laches and refuse relief.
5. Now coming to the cases relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same are clearly distinguishable as competency of appeal before Punjab Service Tribunal and bar of jurisdiction created by Article 212 of the Constitution was not mooted in these cases. Moreover, these are unreported judgments and this Court is under no legal obligation to take the same into consideration in view of provisions of section 3 of Law Reports Act, 1875 as amended by Act 11 of 1990. The same reads as under:-
"3. No Court shall be bound to hear cited, or shall receive or treat as an authority binding on it, the report of any case (decided) on or after the said day by any (High Court), other than a report published under the authority of (a Provincial Government)."
6. It is clear from text of the above provision of law that no Court is bound to receive or treat a report of any case which is not published under the authority of a Provincial Government, as binding on it. The reports relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners arc, therefore, of no binding effect. It is, however, made clear that section 3 is applicable only in respect of the reports of the cases of this Court and not of Hon'ble Supreme Court, while sections 5 and 6 are applicable to all Courts including Federal Shariat Courts, Service Tribunals, Income-tax Appellate Tribunals and National Industrial Relations Commission in view of the explanation to section 5.
7. The result is that the petition is dismissed in limine.
AA./I-187/1, Petition dismissed.