1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Mian MAHMOOD Versus WAPDA
| Citation | 1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Mr. Justice Shah Abdur Rashid, Chairman, A. O. Raziur Rahman and Brig. (Retd.) Abdur Rashid, Members |
| Parties | Mian MAHMOOD Versus WAPDA |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 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 1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Mr. Justice Shah Abdur Rashid, Chairman, A. O. Raziur Rahman and Brig. (Retd.) Abdur Rashid, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Mian MAHMOOD Versus WAPDA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing : 7th July, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 4 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, r‑ 1‑‑Appeal before Tribunal‑Temporary injunction against Government Department in service matters‑ Should not be issued ordinarily unless there are compelling reasons‑Appeal against removal from service‑‑Prayer for temporary injunction for maintaining status quo‑Balance of convenience, held, in favour of respondent department in not disturbing administrative Depart ment and not in favour of appellant because he can claim monetary compensation in case he finally succeeds in getting relief claimed. Ch. Ghulam Qadir for Applicant. Shahid Hussain Jilani for WAPDA.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Ghulam Qadir for Applicant. Shahid Hussain Jilani for WAPDA. Date of hearing : 7th July, 1982. MR. JUSTICE SHAH ABDUR RASHID (CHAIRMAN).‑The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, are that the petitioner was removed from service under section 17 (t‑A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958. He sought remedy before the National Industrial Relations Commission and the High Court, but it appears that finally the High Court dismissed his petition on the ground that the matter was within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. An appeal has been filed before us to challenge the order of removal from service, and along with this, the present petition has been made for the maintenance of status quo, pending the disposal of appeal.
2. Various authorities have been cited at the bar. On the petitioner's side, the cases relied upon are to the effect that a temporary injunction may be issued against the Government restraining it to remove a civil servant; if such a civil servant is likely to suffer on account of being out of job. On the side of the respondent, however, the authorities cited clearly lay down that injunctions in such cases should not be issued, as they are likely to interfere with the day‑to‑day administration of the Government.
3. After going through all the authorities,' we are of the view that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Province of West Pakistan v. Malik Asghar Khan (1971 S C M R 569.) is clear enough for holding the view that in service matters ordinarily temporary injunctions should not be issued. It was observed in that case, that issuance of temporary injunc tion to Government department in respect of service matter is bound to disturb their working, and they should not ordinarily be issued unless there are compelling reasons to do so because balance of convenience' ordinarily would not lie in disturbing the administrative arrangements of a Department. It has been further observed that there can be no question of irreparable loss or injury being caused to the employee by refusing the temporary injunction to him, as he can claim monetary compensation in case he finally succeeds in getting the relief claimed, In this particular case also, therefore, we do not think that the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss, or that the balance of convenience is not in favour of the respondent. The application for temporary injunction is, therefore, dismissed.
4. We have also directed that in the main appeal, the respondent would file written statement within a fortnight, and the case shall be fixed and heard on priority basis. A copy of this order be sent to the appellant as well as to the respondent immediately: Appeal dismissed.