Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petitions Nos. 1‑R and 2‑R of 1986, decided on 29th January, 1986.
(Against the Judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 10th November, 1985).
‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4‑‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority. Act (XXXI of 1958), S.17‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider: (i) whether a service grievance notice under S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance under a misconception of law can be taken to be a sufficient compliance with requirement of rules (rule 11) of Water and Power Development Authority (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 to justify invoking of jurisdiction of Service Tribunal under S. 4 of Act (LXX of 1973) read with S.17 of WAPDA Act (XXXI of 1958); and whether on facts and circumstances of case non‑compliance with provisions of r. 11 ‑of WAPDA Efficiency and Discipline Rules could have been ignored for entertaining and adjudicating on appeals filed by two petitioners.
----Arts. 185(3) & 212(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Questions of law involved likely to arise in a number of cases and there being divergence of opinion over it, leave to appeal granted to have an authoritative pronouncement,
Ch. Abdur Rehman" II, Advocate Supreme Court instructed b5, Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Date of hearing: 29th January, 1986.
‑The two petitions under Article 212(3) of the Constitution raise a common question of law, namely, whether a service grievance notice under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance under misconception of law can be taken to be a sufficient compliance with the requirement of rules (rule 11) of Water and Power Development Authority (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 to justify the invoking of the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act read with section 17 of the Water and Power Development Authority Act.
The question which further requires examination is whether on facts and circumstances of the case the non‑compliance with the provisions of rule 11 of the WAPDA Efficiency and Discipline Rules could have been ignored for entertaining and adjudicating on the appeals filed by the two petitioners. As the questions of law are likely to arise in a number of cases and there has been, according to the judgment of the Service Tribunal itself divergence of opinion over it leave to appeal is granted so that an authoritative pronouncement is forthcoming.
M.I. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer