1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Representation

• M.S. Siddiqi for Petitioner/Appellant.
• Date of hearing: 29th October, 1992.
• ABDUL RAZZAK A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑Mr. Aftabuddin Ahmed Jaferi through his counsel Mr. M.S. Siddiqi, Advocate has filed this petition under section 152, C.P.C. read with Rule 22 of the Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974 against the order dated 16‑7‑1992 of the Tribunal. In this application it is prayed that the case may be reviewed in the light of section 152, C.P.C. and Rule 22 of the Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974 and in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Petition No. 64 of 1992 in the case of Muhammad Ali v Establishment Division etc.
• 2. We have heard Mr. M. S. Siddiqi, Advocate at length. He has tried to argue the case on merits. As regards the miscellaneous application, in question he has stated that application for condonation of delay was omitted to have been filed through oversight and was not before the learned Tribunal therefore, the case may be reviewed.
• 3. The order of the Tribunal in Appeal No. 241 (R)/92, dated 16‑7‑1992 is self‑explanatory and appeal was dismissed on the ground that the appellant did not make any departmental appeal against the Works Division's Notification dated 14th May, 1992 whereby Mr. Abdur Rashid, Superintending Engineer (Civil) was promoted as Chief Engineer (B‑20). It has been observed that appeal to the Tribunal lies against the final order whether the original or appellate and since there was no such order, the appeal was liable to be dismissed and it was dismissed, in limine. The appeal was not dismissed on the point of limitation, though, according to Mr. M.S. Siddiqi, Advocate, he has a grievance against the order passed by the department in the year 1983 and the representation of the appellant, according to the representative of the Works Division, is under consideration and this limitation point could only be taken by the appellate authority. In the case cited by the learned counsel 1992 SCMR 1748 (Muhammad Yousuf v. General Manager, Pakistan Railways and others), it has been held that Rule 22 of the Service Tribunal. (Procedure) Rules, 1974 can be invoked for correction of errors arising out of an accidental slip or omission. In the case of Farid Khan v. WAPDA, reported in 1984 SCMR 603 the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal as time‑barred without considering application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but in the present case the appeal has not been dismissed on the point of limitation but it was decided on merits. In the case of Federation of Pakistan v. Lt.‑Col. Fateh Khan, reported in 1986 SCMR 808, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Tribunal has no power to review or reverse its earlier decision. In the case reported in 1992 SCMR 1784, pressed. in aid by the learned counsel for the appellant, it has been held by the Supreme Court that Rule 22 of the Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974 can be invoked for correction of error arising out of the accidental slip or omission as could be corrected under section 152, C.P.C., but the Supreme Court has observed that suitable amendment was needed in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 to vest the Tribunal with the power to correct its own mistake in a case where it results in an obvious injustice to a party before it. It is not disputed that the appeal of the appellant was decided on merits and it was open to the appellant to have challenged that order before the Supreme Court but he has not done so and preferred to file this miscellaneous application for review. Therefore, this application is mis-conceived.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree