2000 PLP 1255 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD NAZIR MALIK — Appellant Versus S.A.T. WASTI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1255 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, C.J., Mamoon Kazi, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAZIR MALIK — Appellant Versus S.A.T. WASTI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1255 (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 2000 PLP 1255 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, C.J., Mamoon Kazi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1255 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD NAZIR MALIK — Appellant Versus S.A.T. WASTI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Appellants.
- Malik Muhammad Nawaz,. Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 2-11-1998 and 10-11-1998 passed by Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No.828(R) of 1998 and 840(R) of 1998 respectively).
Ss. 2A & 6
Appeal before Service Tribunal-- Limitation
Appellants became entitled to file appeals before Service Tribunal only on abatement of their suit/petition before Civil Court and Labour Tribunal respectively
Provisions of S.6 and not S.4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, would apply in such a situation
Orders of Service Tribunal were set aside and cases were remanded to Service Tribunal for decision afresh.
Judgment & Decree
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J.
The appellants and their counsel are called but they are absent. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents. In the first-mentioned appeal the appellant was dismissed from service on 7-2-1995. His departmental appeal was rejected on 1-3-1995. He filed Review Application, which was also rejected on 12-4-1995. He then filed a Civil Suit on 3-9-1995 which was pending on 10th June, 1997 when section 2-A was added in the Service. Tribunals Act, 1973. In the other appeal the appellant was promoted as Senior Assistant Grade-II Officer with effect from 27-3-1996. His claim before the departmental authority was that he should have been promoted from the date when his juniors were promoted. He accordingly filed departmental appeal and then filed petition before the Labour Court, which was returned for want of jurisdiction on 5-9-1998. He then preferred appeal before the. Service Tribunal on 3-10-1998. Both the appeals were dismissed on the ground that they were time -barred. Hon'ble Tribunal took the view that the appellants should have approached the Tribunal within six months under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973, was clearly not applicable to the present cases. The appellants became entitled to file appeals before the Service Tribunal only on abatement of their suit/petition before the Civil Court and the Labour Tribunal. The provisions of section 6 and not section 4 would apply in such circumstances. We accordingly allow these appeals, set aside the impugned orders and remand the cases to the Tribunal to decide the same in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M-51/S Appeals allowed.