1986 PLP 935 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD LATIF BHATTI and another — Petitioners Versus The CHAIRMAN, A.E.B.(E) WAPDA and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 935 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD LATIF BHATTI and another — Petitioners Versus The CHAIRMAN, A.E.B.(E) WAPDA and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 935 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 935 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 935 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD LATIF BHATTI and another — Petitioners Versus The CHAIRMAN, A.E.B.(E) WAPDA and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdur Rehman" II, Advocate Supreme Court instructed b5, Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 29th January, 1986.
- Ch. Abdur Rehman" II, Advocate Supreme Court instructed b5, Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the Judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 10th November, 1985). --Art. 212(3)--Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4--West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority. Act (XXXI of 1958), S.17--Leave to appeal granted to consider: (i) whether a service grievance notice under S. 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance under a misconception of law can be taken to be a sufficient compliance with requirement of rules (rule 11) of Water and Power Development Authority (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 to justify invoking of jurisdiction of Service Tribunal under S. 4 of Act (LXX of 1973) read with S.17 of WAPDA Act (XXXI of 1958); and whether on facts and circumstances of case non-compliance with provisions of r. 11 -of WAPDA Efficiency and Discipline Rules could have been ignored for entertaining and adjudicating on appeals filed by two petitioners.
Arts. 185(3) & 212(3)--Leave to appeal, grant of--Questions of law involved likely to arise in a number of cases and there being divergence of opinion over it, leave to appeal granted to have an authoritative pronouncement,
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The two petitions under Article 212(3) of the Constitution raise a common question of law, namely, whether a service grievance notice under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance under misconception of law can be taken to be a sufficient compliance with the requirement of rules (rule 11) of Water and Power Development Authority (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 to justify the invoking of the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act read with section 17 of the Water and Power Development Authority Act. The question which further requires examination is whether on facts and circumstances of the case the non‑compliance with the provisions of rule 11 of the WAPDA Efficiency and Discipline Rules could have been ignored for entertaining and adjudicating on the appeals filed by the two petitioners. As the questions of law are likely to arise in a number of cases and there has been, according to the judgment of the Service Tribunal itself divergence of opinion over it leave to appeal is granted so that an authoritative pronouncement is forthcoming. M.I. Leave granted.