SCMR 2000

2000 PLP 104 (SCMR)

GHULAM SARWAR BHUTTO — Petitioner Versus CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SINDH

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition No. 604-K of 1998, decided on 5th April, 1999.
Honorable Judges
Ajmal Mian, C. J, Nasir Aslam Zahid and Mamoon Kazi, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2000 PLP 104 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Ajmal Mian, C. J, Nasir Aslam Zahid and Mamoon Kazi, JJ
Parties GHULAM SARWAR BHUTTO — Petitioner Versus CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SINDH
Primary Law Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 104 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 104 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, C. J, Nasir Aslam Zahid and Mamoon Kazi, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 104 (SCMR) (GHULAM SARWAR BHUTTO — Petitioner Versus CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SINDH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)

Representation

  • Iqbal Raad, Advocate-General Sindh for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 5th April, 1999.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the order of the Sindh Service Tribunal, dated 1-6-1998 passed in Appeal No.59 of 1998).

Ss. 3-E & 4

Employee

of Corporation

Termination of service-- Validity

Appeal

Limitation

Provision of S. 4, Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 was applicable only to civil servants and not to persons who invoke jurisdiction off Service Tribunal by virtue of S. 3-E of the said Act

Legislature by insertion of S. 3-E in the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 had only intended to provide a remedy for redressal of grievance to person serving in Corporations owned and controlled by the Federal Government or Provincial Government, but the other terms and conditions applicable to such persons were not intended to provided in S. 4 to civil servants could not be made applicable to persons as such by S. 3-E, Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 as right of a departmental appeal may not be available to them as provided for in case of civil servants. In the present case Service Tribunal while dismissing the appeal 'of the employee had proceeded on an assumption that section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act was applicable in the case of the employee. Although the procedure, as provided by section 4, was not followed in this case by the employee as appeal before the Tribunal was not filed within the period of limitation as provided by the said section but section 4 is applicable only to civil servants and not to persons who invoke jurisdiction of the Tribunals by virtue of deeming clause inserted in Service Tribunals Act or similar Provincial enactments. The Tribunal had failed to notice that such amendments whereby civil servants had been made only in the Service Tribunals Act both Federal as well as Provincial but corresponding amendments had not been made3 in the Civil Servants Act. Therefore, the Legislature had only intended to provide a remedy for redressal of grievances to persons serving in corporations owned or controlled by Federal or a Provincial Government but the other terms and conditions be made applicable to such persons. Consequently the period of limitation, as provided in section 4, which was applicable only to civil servants, could not be made applicable to person who had been declared as such by the said deeming provisions in the Service Tribunals Act as right of a departmental appeal may not be available to them as provided for in case of a civil servant. Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for giving a fresh decision on the question of limitation, and thereafter consider the merits of the case, if the first question was decided in favour of petitioner. Muhammad Siddique v. Allama Iqbal Open University Islamabad C.P. No.483 of 1998 and 685 of 1998. ref. Petitioner in person.

Judgment & Decree

MAMOON KAZI, J.

The petitioner was serving with Sindh Road Transport Corporation the respondent in this petition. His services were terminated on 28-8-1998. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal challenging termination of his services on 26-9-1997 and before the same could be disposed of he filed a Constitutional Petition in the High Court of Sindh. The same was, however, dismissed for want of jurisdiction as by virtue of an amendment introduced through Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) (Act XXXI of 1994), service in "Corporation", as defended by the said Act, was to be deemed as civil service. The petitioner's leave petition before this Court against the said order also failed. The petitioner then filed his appeal before the Tribunal on 11-3-1998. His appeal was, however, dismissed by the Tribunal as time-barred as it was held that the petitioner should have approached the Tribunal within 120 days of filing of his departmental appeal even if the same had not been finally decided and, thus, his appeal before the Tribunal was hopelessly time-barred.

2. It has been noticed by us that the learned Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner has proceeded on an assumption that section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act is applicable in the case of the petitioner. Although, it appears that the procedure, as provided by section 4, was not followed in this case by the petitioner as appeal before the Tribunal was not filed within the period of limitation as provided by the said section, but section 4 is applicable only to civil servants and not to persons who invoke jurisdiction of the Tribunal by virtue of deeming clause inserted in Service Tribunals Act or similar Provincial enactments. The Tribunal appears to have failed to notice that such amendments whereby employees of a Corporation are to be deemed to be civil servant, have been made only in the Service Tribunals Act, both Federal as well as Provincial, but corresponding amendments have not been made in the Civil Servants Act. Therefore, the Legislature appears only to have intended to provide a remedy for redressal of grievances to persons serving in corporations owned or controlled by the Federal or a Provincial Governments, but the other terms and conditions applicable to civil servants were not intended to be made applicable to such persons. Consequently, the period of limitation, as provided in section 4, which is applicable only to civil servants, cannot be made applicable to persons who have been declared as such by the said deeming provisions in the Service Tribunals Act as right of a departmental appeal may not be available to them as provided for in case of a civil servant. Reference in this regard may also be made to the case of Lt Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Siddique v. Allama Iqbal Open University Islamabad, Civil Petitions No. 483 of 1998 and 685 of 1998 decided by this Court on 2-11-1998 wherein under similar circumstances the case was remanded to the Service Tribunal for a fresh decision, on the question of limitation.

3. In the result, this petition is converted into an appeal and the case is remanded to the tribunal for giving a fresh decision on the question of limitation, and thereafter, consider. the merits of the, case, if the first question is decided in favour of the petitioner. M.B.A./G-46/SC Case remanded.