Find a Lawyer

Case No. 639/7014 of 1980, decided on 12th November, 1983

‑‑S. 5 ‑ Punjab Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1975, r. 22‑Powers of Tribunal‑Cannot review its judgment except for correction of mathematical/clerical error‑Tribunal dismissing appeal of employee of Faisalabad Development Authority as not maintainable because of such employee not being a civil servant- Appellant filing miscellaneous application praying that case be reconsidered because his lawyer could not explain correct position of law with regard to jurisdiction of Tribunal‑Tribunal admitting case for re‑hearing but coming to same: conclusion‑Tribunal, however, held, not empowered to review its judgment‑Miscellaneous application dismissed‑Appellant allowed to seek remedy before proper forum with observations that period spent before Tribunal will not . be taken into consideration for limitation purpose.

‑‑Ss. 2 (b) & 4‑Employee of Faisalabad Development Authority Not a civil servant‑‑Not within jurisdiction of Tribunal.

Nawab Saeed Ullah Khan for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun District Attorney for Respondents.

‑ Khalid Pervaiz has filed appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, which he has impleaded Mr. Sadullah Khan, Director‑General, Development Authority, Faisalabad and WASA, F. D. A, through Managing Director as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned dated 2nd March, 1980, passed by the respondent No. 1 be illegal, unlawful and without lawful authority and the appellant reinstated in service with retrospective:

3. Before we enter into the history of this case, it may be useful mention that the appeal of the appellant stood dismissed for lack jurisdiction vide order, dated 30th June, 1982, by the Full Bench of this Tribunal. However, on 30th May, 1983, a Miscellaneous application was moved by the learned counsel for the appellant that the case be reconsidered as according to him same was arrived at due to fault of his lawyer who could not explain the correct position of law with regard to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The case was adjourned to 23rd June, 1983, to consider this point but nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant and the case was again adjourned to 25th July, 1983. On 25th July, 1983, the case was referred to the Full Bench by Member II and ultimately final hearing of this case was fixed for 24th October, 1983. On 24th October, 1983, we heard the arguments and reserved the case for communication of Judgment.

4. We have beard the learned counsel for the appellant once again on the point of jurisdiction but do not find any reason to interfere with our earlier judgment both on merits as well as on legal plane. The laws on this point is well‑settled that this Tribunal has now powers to review its earlier order/judgment, unless and until the same contain some mathematical/clerical error. In the present case our earlier judgment dated 30th June, 1982, may be read as part of this judgment, which is quite elaborate on the point of jurisdiction of this Tribunal while holding that the appellant was not a civil servant. However, as the case was admitted for rehearing by this Tribunal and was concluded after a number of months due to the absence of Chairman who was abroad on ex‑Pakistan leave for medical check up, we allow the appellant to seek remedy before the proper forum with the observation that this period which has been spent by him before us, will not be taken into consideration for limitation purpose.

5. With these observations we dismiss the miscellaneous application so filed by the appellant for review of our earlier judgment. There will be no order as to costs. The judgment be communicated to the parties.

A.E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.