Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑S.17(1‑B)‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4(1)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Suspension‑ Respondent falling within definition of civil servant as contemplated by S‑:17(1‑B) of West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act XXXI of 1958, and suspension orders passed in his case standing implemented and attaining finality within meaning of S.4(1) of Service Tribunals Act 1973‑‑Labour Court/Tribunal, held, had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon such matter‑‑Orders passed by Labour Court/Tribunal in matter was declared as coram non judice and set aside.

Muhammad Sadiq Khokhar v. Engineer in Chief Pakistan Army and others' 1985 S C M R 63 rel.

Ch. Ghulam Hussain Gulshan for Petitioner.

Mian Mehmood Hussain for Respondent No.l.

None for others.

Date of hearing: 1st April, 1987.

This order will dispose of writ petitions Nos.3290/86, 3291/86, 3292/86, and 3293/86, since a common question of law is involved in all the four cases and all these four writ petitions emanate out of the same impugned order, passed in appeal by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, dated 14‑5‑1986.

2. The short legal question involved in these cases is as to whether in view of the provisions enshrined in section 17(1‑B) of the Pakistan Water & Power Development Authority Act, 1958, read with S.4(1) of the Services Tribunal Act, 1973, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Labour Court, Lahore had the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter.

3. Vide order, dated 8‑11‑1986, passed by this Court, respondent No.l was required to put in appearance and to come prepared to argue the main case. Mian Mehmood Hussain, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No.l, in all the cases, has appeared.

4. Since short question of law is involved and I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length; therefore, I admit the petitions to regular hearing and the main petitions are disposed of by this order.

5. Brief facts which are common to these four writ petitions, except for dates, are that respondents, in all the four cases, were suspended on account of charges of misconduct. The suspension orders, in all the four cases, were implemented and given effect to.

6. The learned counsel for respondent No.l, Mian Mehmood Hussain, has advanced an argument that suspension order is not a final order, therefore, does not fall within the mischief of section 4(1) of Service Tribunal Act, 1973, thus the Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the proper forum was a recourse by way of petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and, consequently; an appeal to the Punjab Labour Appellate Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for petitioner says that in view of section 17(1‑B) of The Pakistan WAPDA Act, 1958, respondents are civil servants and, suspension order being necessary term and condition of service, which on account of its implementation, had attained finality, thus squarely falls within the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal within the meaning of section 4(1) thereof. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the case of Muhammad Sadiq Khokhar v. Engineer .in Chief Pakistan Army & others reported in 1985 S C M R 63, wherein their Lordships in the Supreme Court have held that a suspension order, once implemented, attains finality within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.

7. In view of the above judgment, I hold that since suspension orders passed in the instant cases, stood implement, thus attained finality within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973. There is no controversy that "suspension" is a necessary term and condition of service. There is equally no controversy that respondent No.l, in all these petitions, falls within the definition of civil servant as contemplated by section 17(1‑B) of the Pakistan WAPDA, Act; 1958.

8. In this view of the matter, I hold that the two Courts below had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter, to therefore, the impugned orders are set aside, being coram non judice. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to cost.

M.Y.H./W‑2/Lb.

Petitions allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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