2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
NISARUL HAQ and another Versus KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. and another
| Citation | 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, CJ, Mamoon Kazi, Wajihuddin Ahmed and Kamal Mansur Alam, JJ |
| Parties | NISARUL HAQ and another Versus KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. and another |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, CJ, Mamoon Kazi, Wajihuddin Ahmed and Kamal Mansur Alam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (NISARUL HAQ and another Versus KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hidayat Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate- on-Record (absent) for Appellants (in both Cases).
- Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 31-12-1997 passed by Federal Service Tribunal in Appeals Nos.2496-K and 2638-K of 1997 respectively).
Art. 212(3)
Dismissal of appeal by Service Tribunal
Failure to pass speaking order
Service Tribunal dismissed appeal in terms of its earlier decision, wherein the Tribunal formulated as many as nineteen propositions of law for decision
Service Tribunal failed to indicate as to which of the nineteen propositions framed by the Tribunal were applicable to appeal before it
Contention by respondent-Corporation was that appeal was dismissed on the point of retrospectively and limitation
Such-like position did not appear from the judgment of the Tribunal
Order of Service Tribunal was set aside and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for decision in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The impugned order dated 31-12-1997 is not a speaking order. The appeals filed by the appellants have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Service Tribunal in terms of its earlier decision in Service Appeal No.2638(K) of 1997 wherein the Tribunal A formulated as many as 19 propositions of law for decision. There is .no indication in the impugned order as to which of the nineteen propositions framed by the Hon'ble Tribunal were applicable to the appeals before it. Learned counsel for the respondents attempted to support the impugned order of the Tribunal contending that the appeals have been dismissed on the points of retrospectively and limitation. It may be so but it does not appear from the impugned judgment. We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remand the cases to the Tribunal for decision in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./N-7/S Appeal allowed.