1990 PLP 961 (SCMR)
and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUNIR AHMAD and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 961 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shfiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUNIR AHMAD and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 961 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 961 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shfiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 961 (SCMR) (and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUNIR AHMAD and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Hasan Gulshan Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 24th July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 4‑3‑1986 passed by the Federal Service Tribal in Appeals No. 746(L) and 745(L) of 1982). ‑‑‑‑S. 17(1‑A)‑‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Conversion of dismissal order into order of retirement‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Tribunal‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Authority had challenged order of Tribunal converting order of dismissal of employee from service passed by Authority into order of retirement on ground that Tribunal after finding that there were good grounds with Authority for taking action against employee under section 17(1‑A) of Act, 1958, it was not ‑open to it to interfere with its discretion with regard to nature of orders made‑‑‑Competency of Tribunal being not restricted in that regard, Tribunal could examine not only whether there was material before Authority for invoking provision of law but could also consider whether nature of order made was appropriate‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal being without any merit was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
(From the order dated 4‑3‑1986 passed by the Federal Service Tribal in Appeals No. 746(L) and 745(L) of 1982). ‑‑‑‑S. 17(1‑A)‑‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Conversion of dismissal order into order of retirement‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Tribunal‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Authority had challenged order of Tribunal converting order of dismissal of employee from service passed by Authority into order of retirement on ground that Tribunal after finding that there were good grounds with Authority for taking action against employee under section 17(1‑A) of Act, 1958, it was not ‑open to it to interfere with its discretion with regard to nature of orders made‑‑‑Competency of Tribunal being not restricted in that regard, Tribunal could examine not only whether there was material before Authority for invoking provision of law but could also consider whether nature of order made was appropriate‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal being without any merit was dismissed. Ch. Ghulam Hasan Gulshan Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions). Date of hearing: 24th July, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑These are two petitions for special leave to appeal from the judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal. The respondents in these petitions were employees of the petitioner authority. They were removed from service by the Authority under the provisions of section 17(IA), Water and Power Development Authority Act. They preferred appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal found that the petitioner Authority had sufficient grounds for not retaining them in service but converted the orders of removal into orders of retirement from service. The petitioner Authority seeks leave to appeal from the order of the learned Tribunal.
2. In support of these petitions it is contended that after the learned Tribunal found that there were good grounds with the Authority for taking action against the respondents under section 17(IA), it was not open to it to interfere with its discretion with regard to the nature of the orders made. It is difficult to accept this contention. The learned Tribunal as an Appellate Authority can not only examine whether there was material before the petitioner Authority for invoking the provisions of section 17(IA) but also consider whether the nature of the order made was appropriate. There is nothing in section 17, or in any other provision of the WAPDA Act which may be taken to restrict the competency of the Tribunal in this regard. These petitions are without any merit and are hereby dismissed. H.B.T./W‑73/S Petition dismissed.