1978 PLP 203 (SCMR)
KARACHI AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus GADA HUSAIN AND ANOTHER — Respondents
| Citation | 1978 PLP 203 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | --- Art. 185(3)-Waiver-Contention regarding limitation not pressed before. Tribunal passing impugned order-Point, held, presumed to have been abandoned and could not be allowed to be raised as leave to appeal stage in Supreme Cow-Substantial justice having been done between parties petition dismissed.-Leave to appeal ---Waiver. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KARACHI AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus GADA HUSAIN AND ANOTHER — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 203 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 203 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the --- Art. 185(3)-Waiver-Contention regarding limitation not pressed before. Tribunal passing impugned order-Point, held, presumed to have been abandoned and could not be allowed to be raised as leave to appeal stage in Supreme Cow-Substantial justice having been done between parties petition dismissed.-Leave to appeal ---Waiver. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 203 (SCMR) (KARACHI AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus GADA HUSAIN AND ANOTHER — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Usman Ghani, Assistant Advocate-General (Sind) and S. M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 18th Match 1978.
- Usman Ghani, Assistant Advocate‑General (Sind) and S. M. Abbas, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 185(3)-Waiver-Contention regarding limitation not pressed before. Tribunal passing impugned order-Point, held, presumed to have been abandoned and could not be allowed to be raised as leave to appeal stage in Supreme Cow-Substantial justice having been done between parties petition dismissed.-[Leave to appeal
Waiver].
Judgment & Decree
WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑The respondent eras appointed temporarily is Chowkidar in the Chandika Medical College, Larkana on 14‑11‑
73. His service were later on, redesignated, and be was posted as a Peon in the laid College under Office Order dated 21-8‑74 on the same terns and conditions of service. During the students disturbances In the College, it is alleged that he behaved against the discipline of the College and harboured student wanted by the authorities, and concealed him in the laboratory of Histology Department An enquiry was held against the respondent and he was found guilty of misconduct and thus it was thought undesirable to retain him in the College service. His services were: terminated by Order dated 12‑12‑
75. The respondent challenged this cider in appeal before the Sind Service Tribunal on 20-5‑
76. This appeal was withdrawn on the ground of being defective for non‑joinder of parties and another appeal was filed on 13‑7‑76 which was numbered as Appeal No. 71 of 1976. On hearing the appeal it was allowed by the Chairman and one Member of the Sind Service Tribunal, Karachi on the ground that the respondent was not afforded an opportunity of show cause. Another member gave a dissent ing judgment and decided the appeal on the question of limitation. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said Order. Mr. Usman Ghani the learned counsel for the petitioner has not argued on the merits of the case but hue only urged that the appeal filed by respondent, was barred by time. From the impugned order, it appears that this point was not pressed before the Service Tribunal. In these circumstances we consider that the point of limitation ass abandoned before the learned Tribunal and we cannot allow it to be raised before us in this petition for special leave. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are satisfied that the substantial justice lies been done between the parties. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.