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. 120‑R & 121‑R of 1986, decided on 30th June, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 27‑3‑1986 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 64 & 64‑A of 1986 in Appeals Nos. 117(R) and 118(R) of 1984).
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Competency of‑‑Interlocutory order‑‑Petitions directed against interlocutory order passed by Service Tribunal, held, incompetent.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Supreme Court accepting appeals against decision of Service Tribunal and remanding case for decision afresh‑‑Petitioners refused permission to add additional ground to substantiate mala fides of respondents against them‑‑Leave to appeal being sought against interlocutory order, refused‑‑Petitioner sought clarification and true intent of Supreme Court's order while disposing of appeals in its consolidated judgment, in regard to question of mala fides‑‑Held: If petitioners were able to show that action against them was indeed actuated by mala fides, Tribunal would not be debarred from taking note of that.
Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both the Petitions).
Nemo for Respondents (in both the Petitions).
Date of hearing: 30th June, 1986.
This order will dispose of Civil Petition 120‑R of 1986 and Civil Petition No. 121‑R of 1986.
This Court, on 14‑12‑1985 had accepted the appeals preferred by WAPDA (Civil Appeals Nos. 331 of 1985 and 332 of 1985) against the decision of the Service Tribunal, dated 15‑12‑1984 passed in favour of the petitioners herein and remanded their cases for decision afresh.
On remand, both the petitioners submitted applications before the Service Tribunal for permission to add additional grounds to substantiate the mala fides of WAPDA etc. (respondents herein) against them. These applications were rejected on the ground that this question had already been considered by this Court while deciding their cases in the earlier round, vide order, dated 27‑3‑1986. These petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the aforesaid order.
These petitions are obviously incompetent as they are directed against an interlocutory order passed by the Service Tribunal.
The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that In the interest of justice this Court may clarify further its true intent while disposing of Civil Appeals Nos. 331 of 1985 and 332 of in its consolidated judgment passed on 14‑12‑1985, in regard to this question.
We would observe that if the petitioners are able to show that the action against them was indeed actuated by mala fides, the Tribunal would not be debarred from taking note of this.
With these observations, both the petitions are dismissed.
M.I. Petitions dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer