1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S.4--Powers of Tribunal--Review--Section 7 is general in nature and its scope is limited to matters which may accrue before passing the order in appeal Matter already adjudged by the Tribunal, could not be re-opened on application of a party that observation of Tribunal would have been otherwise if Tribunal had interpreted a particular thing from a particular angle--Petitioner, after Tribunal passed judgment on 13-10-1986, keeping mum till 20-1-1988 and he thus was also to suffer on ground of laches--Clerical or any other mistake in judgment can be reviewed /corrected suo motu or on application of a party--Review petition being incompetents. dismissed. Petitioner Qalandar Khan, Senior Teacher Government High School Kani Guran, South Waziristan Agency through the present review petition sought for the review of the order dated 13-10-1986 passed by this Tribunal vide which the then Chairman Mr. Justice, (Retd.) Qaisar Khan allegedly made certain observations, which according to the petitioner damaged his interest. Petitioner initially filed an appeal on 30-8-1986 vide which he challenged the impugned order dated 3-4-1986 passed by the respondents, denying his acquittal in the murder case as honourable and no benefits were given to him for the period from 13-2-1983 to 31-5-1985, although his absence from duty was considered as leave without pay. The said appeal was decided in negative vide order dated 13-10-1986 of the Tribunal. The last Para is reproduced below. "After hearing counsel for the appellant and going through the file it is abundantly clear that there is no merit in this appeal. There is no doubt that the judgment of the Sessions Judge acquitting the appellant of the murder charge read as a whole would show that his acquittal was honourable but then it was the discretion of the Director (FATA) to allow him any type of leave that was admissible to him as he had not worked at all during the said period. Besides he was acquitted on 28-11-1984 but did not report for duty till 1-6-1985 and he has not been able to explain reasonably this absence of his from duty. There is no doubt that he has produced a medical certificate from a Doctor that he was under his treatment for 4 months with effect from 1-2-1985 but then this certificate was obtained on 6-11-1985 and not on his alleged recovery on 1-6-1985. Furthermore he had never been admitted to any Hospital and it is not understood as to why did he not go to his office or to the office of the Director and submit an application for medical leave. Besides he has not explained in any way as to why he was absent from duty without leave from 28-11-1984 to 1-2-1985 when he was neither ill nor in lock-up. He could have been proceeded against for misconduct for his absence from duty for the said period without leave and he should thank his stars that he has not been proceeded against for misconduct. He has rightly been allowed leave for the said period without pay and there being nothing in this appeal it is hereby dismissed in limine." He vide paras. No.7 and 8 of the present petition alleged that he reported for duty on 14-12-1984 and there were winter holidays till 28-2-1985. The department i.e. the respondents treated this acquittal from the murder charge of the petitioner as honourable but refused to allow him back benefits. Reliance was made by learned counsel for the petitioner on Section 7 of the Act. However there is no specific provision of law in the enactment for the review of the order/judgment by the Tribunal. Section 7 of the Act is general in nature and its scope is limited to the matters which may accrue before passing the order in an appeal. The scope of review is very narrow and it is the creation of a statute. It cannot be extended to a case in which a special enactment does not contain the provision of review. Any matter which has already been adjudged by the Tribunal cannot be reopened by it, on the application of a party that the observations of the Tribunal would have been otherwise, if the Tribunal had interpreted a particular thing from a particular angle. The petitioner after passing the said judgment became mum and did not take any step till 20-1-1988. He is also to suffer on the ground of laches. However before concluding it is pointed out that a clerical or any other mistake of the similar type can be reviewed /corrected suo motu or on the application of a party, after the decision in the appeal. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present review petition is incompetent and it is accordingly dismissed in limine. File be consigned to the record room. S.Q./80/Sr.N Petition dismissed