2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD IQBAL CHAUDHRY and another Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others
| Citation | 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, and Rana Bhagwandas, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL CHAUDHRY and another Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, and Rana Bhagwandas, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL CHAUDHRY and another Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court, Shaukat Ali Mehr, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on -Record (absent) for Petitioners (in both Cases).
- Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Dy. A.‑G. for Respondent No. 1.
- Maqbool Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court, and Mehmood‑ul -Islam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 23rd February, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 13‑9‑2002 passed by Federal Service Tribunal in Appeals Nos.1748(I) and 1540(I) of 1998). ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Judgment passed by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Non‑speaking order‑‑‑Although pleadings of the parties had been reproduced through and through but the contentions of the parties and points on which they were resting their cases were not .taken into consideration at all by the Service Tribunal‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Forums seized with the judicial matters are required to pass such a speaking judgment that it should give impression to readers that the legal, and factual aspects of the case which were raised before it for the purpose of decision, had been considered and decided in the light of recognized principles of law on the subject instead of disposing of in ‑slipshod manner‑‑‑In the instant case both the sides stated that instead of allowing the petition to remain pending on the file of Supreme Court, if leave was granted, the case be remanded to Service Tribunal for fresh decision after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and the case was remanded to Service Tribunal for decision afresh‑‑‑Appeal was allowed.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court, Shaukat Ali Mehr, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on -Record (absent) for Petitioners (in both Cases). Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Dy. A.‑G. for Respondent No.
1. Maqbool Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court, and Mehmood‑ul -Islam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents Nos. 2 and
3. Date of hearing: 23rd February, 2004. IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑These petitions have been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 13th September, 2002 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby appeals filed by petitioners have been dismissed.
2. There is no need to marshal the facts of the case in detail because with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties while going through the impugned judgment we have noted that Service Tribunal had not dilated upon the respective contentions of the parties counsel put forward before it and had decided the cases by just making general remarks about the conduct of the petitioners.
3. It may be noted that the forums seized with the judicial matters are required to pass such a speaking judgment that it should give an impression to readers that the legal and factual aspects of the, case which were raised before it for the purpose of decision have been considered and decided in the light of recognized principles of law on the subject instead of disposing of in slipshod manner.
4. We have noted with great concern that in instant cases although the pleadings of the parties had been reproduced through and through but the contentions of the parties and the points on which they were resting their cases were not taken into consideration at all. Be that as it may, in these circumstances, both the sides stated that instead of allowing the petitions to remain pending on the file, if leave is granted, the cases may be remanded to the Service Tribunal for fresh decision after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. Thus for the foregoing reasons, petitions are converted into appeals and allowed. Cases are remitted to the Service Tribunal for expeditious disposal as far as possible within a period of three months preferably. M.H./M‑53/S Cases remanded.