Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petitions Nos. 885 to 890 of 1984, decided on 11^th November, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 10‑6‑1984 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeals Nos. 3(L), 6(L), 2(L), 4(L), 198(L) and 5(L) of 1982).

‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S.17(1‑A)‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4‑‑Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal‑‑Held, it is Service Tribunal alone which has jurisdiction to adjudicate all questions with regard to terms and conditions of WAPDA employees as from 30‑9‑1975.‑‑[Jurisdiction].

1986 S C M R 18 rel.

‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S.17(1‑A)‑‑Premature retirement from service‑‑Mala fides of orders‑‑WAPDA engineers transferred on deputation and on repatriation retired from service‑‑Order declared mala fide by Service Tribunal‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑There being no reason for authority to terminate services of respondent‑officers except for consideration that it was not prepared to take trouble of looking into and solving problem of how to adjust otherwise competent officers in parent organisation, order of Service Tribunal declaring action male fide, held, was justified‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere in exercise of , its discretionary jurisdiction and refused leave to appeal.

Ch. Ghulam Hasan Gulshan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioners in all petitions.

Ch. Khalilur Rehman, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C.P. No. 885 of 1984).

Bashir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos. 886 and 888 of 1984).

Respondents in person (in C.Ps. Nos. 887, 889 and 890 of 1984)

Date of hearing: 11th November, 1985

‑This order will dispose of C.P. No.885 of 1984, C.P. No.886 of 1984, C.P. No.887 of 1984, C.P. No.888 of 1984, C.P. No.889 of 1984 and C.P. No.890 of 1984.

The respondents in these cases had joined the service in WAPDA (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner‑Authority), as Junior Engineers and were working in the Machinery Pool Organization of the petitioner Authority. In 1974, a limited company was floated by the Government of Pakistan under the name and style of 'Machanised Construction of Pakistan and the respondents in these petitions were transferred to that Company on deputation. They were repatriated to the petitioner Authority on 15‑4‑1981 and when they submitted their arrival report to the petitioner‑Authority it declined to give them any duty and ultimately got rid of them by ordering their retirement, in purported exercise of powers under section 17(IA) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. These orders were challenged before the Federal Service Tribunal by the respondents, through separate appeals. The competency and maintainability of these appeals were challenged by the petitioner‑Authority on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear appeals against the orders passed under section 17(IA) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. This objection was repelled by the Tribunal and on the merits the Service Tribunal held that the termination of the respondents‑officers was mala fide. Their appeals were, accordingly, accepted and the petitioner‑Authority was directed to re‑instate them into service, with effect from the date of their premature retirement with all the consequential benefits.

These petitions for leave are directed against the aforesaid order of the Federal Service Tribunal.

Ch. Ghulam Hasan Gulshan, learned counsel for the petitioner Authority in support of these petitions contended firstly that the decision of the learned Tribunal that it had the jurisdiction to hear the appeals against orders passed under section 17(IA) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 was incorrect and the Tribunal had, therefore, acted illegally in assuming jurisdiction in entertaining the appeals.

We find no merit in this plea. In fact, this Court has recently held, while deciding Civil Appeals Nos. 101 of 1979, 121 of 1984, 159 of 1978, 170 to 173 of 1983, 276, 275 of 1983, 665, 721 of 1984, 803, 805, 806, 808 of 1984 and Civil Petitions Nos. 176‑R, 177‑R, 317‑R ‑; 1985 and 1154 of 1984 reported as 1986 S C M R 18 that it is the Service Tribunal alone which has jurisdiction to adjudicate all questions with regard to the terms and conditions of WAPDA employees as from 30‑9‑1975. In view of the above ruling the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner‑Authority must fail.

It was next contended that the finding of the Tribunal that the orders of retirement. passed by the petitioner‑Authority were mala fide was erroneous.

We have gone through the order of the Tribunal very carefully and find that it was justified in taking the view that the orders to terminate the services of the respondents were mala fide. In fact; there appears to be no reason for the petitioner‑Authority for terminating the services of the respondents‑officers except for the consideration that it was not prepared to take the trouble of looking into and solving the problem of how to adjust the otherwise competent officers, in the parent organisation, after they were off‑loaded by the Mechanised Construction of Pakistan.

"We are not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court to grant leave to appeal in such a case. All the petitions for leave are, accordingly dismissed hereby.

M.I. ‑

Petitions dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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