1989 PLP 610 (SCMR)
c Versus THE PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT
| Citation | 1989 PLP 610 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ghulam Mujaddid JJ |
| Parties | c Versus THE PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 610 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 610 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ghulam Mujaddid JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 610 (SCMR) (c Versus THE PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th November, 19158.
- Bashir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 5-12-1984 of the Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad, (:amp at Lahore in Appeal No.368(L) of 1983).
S.4--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)--Appeal before Service Tribunal--Difference of opinion between two members constituting the Bench- First member was of the opinion that appeals should be allowed and the orders of termination set aside while second member's view was that such appeals should be dismissed--Appeals having been placed before Chairman of Tribunal, the third member, he agreed with the view that appeals be dismissed but at the same time opined that the order of termination passed against petitioners having not been properly worded required some amendment and advised the department accordingly--Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention that third member had not given any reason, for agreeing with second member who proposed dismissal of appeals, while his observations showed that he was not satisfied with the terms of the order of termination and suggested that same be amended, thereby practically contradicting himself that the orders deserved to be upheld.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th November, 19158. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑This order will dispose of both these petitions as the question requiring consideration in both these matters is the same. The appeals filed by the petitioners herein were placed before a Division Bench of the Federal Services Tribunal. There was a difference of opinion between the two members constituting the Bench; the first member was of the opinion that the appeals should be allowed and the orders of termination set aside while the second member was of the opinion that the appeals should be dismissed. The appeals were, accordingly, placed before the third member, namely, Justice Shah Abdur Rashid, Chairman of the Tribunal. The said learned third member agreed with the second member (who was of the opinion that the appeals should be dismissed) but at the same time opined that the order of termination passed against the petitioners was not properly worded and required some amendment. He advised the department accordingly. It is submitted that the learned Chairman has neither given any reason i for agreeing with the second member and furthermore his observations, while agreeing with him, show that he was not satisfied with the terms of the order of termination and suggested that they should be amended, thereby practically contradicting himself that the orders deserved to be upheld. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the appeals have not been disposed of properly in accordance with law. There is force in this submission. Leave granted. The appeals shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any and put up for hearing at an early date. A.A./M‑688/S Leave to appeal granted.