1990 PLP 934 (SCMR)
WAPDA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL SATTAR and 2 others‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 934 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | WAPDA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL SATTAR and 2 others‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 934 (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 1990 PLP 934 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur 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 934 (SCMR) (WAPDA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL SATTAR and 2 others‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Iftikhar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No. 322 of 1987).
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in Civil Petition No. 322 of 1987).
- Syed Iftikhar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No. 327 of 1.987).
- S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in Civil Petition No. 327 of 1987).
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No. 443 of 1989).
- Nemo for Respondent (in Civil Petition No. 443 of 1989).
- Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal‑‑‑Tribunal as an Appellate forum can not only examine whether order made by Authority is supported by material, but in suitable cases can substitute the same with one which it deemed to be more appropriate.
Judgment & Decree
WAPDA through its Chairman‑‑‑Respondent (Against the judgment and order dated 21‑4‑1987 of the Federal Service Tribunal). Civil Petitions Nos. 322 and 327 of 1987 and 443 of 1989, decided on 2nd August, 1989. ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal‑‑‑Tribunal as an Appellate forum can not only examine whether order made by Authority is supported by material, but in suitable cases can substitute the same with one which it deemed to be more appropriate. Syed Iftikhar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No. 322 of 1987). Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in Civil Petition No. 322 of 1987). Syed Iftikhar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No. 327 of 1.987). S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in Civil Petition No. 327 of 1987). Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No. 443 of 1989). Nemo for Respondent (in Civil Petition No. 443 of 1989). Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The respondents were employees of the petitioner Authority. Their services were terminated under section 17(1‑A), Water and Power Development Authority Act. They preferred appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal found that there was material evidence on the records of the respondents to justify action under section 17(1‑A) against them. However, taking into account the length of periods that they had spent in the service of the Authority it substituted the orders of removal with the orders of retirement. The Authority now seeks leave to appeal from the judgments of the Tribunal,
2. In support of .this petition it is urged that after the Tribunal had found that the Authority had sufficient reasons to take action against the respondents under section 17(1‑A) it was not open to it to interfere with the orders made by the Authority. It is difficult to accept this contention. As an appellate forum the learned Tribunal could not only examine whether the order made by the Authority was supported by material but in suitable cases it could substitute the order of the Authority with one which it deemed to be more appropriate. Leave is refused in all these petitions. H.B.T./W‑74/S Leave refused.