1985 PLP 135 (SCMR)
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Petitioner Versus ABID HUSSAIN — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 135 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rehman, M.S.H. Quraishi and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Petitioner Versus ABID HUSSAIN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 135 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 135 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rehman, M.S.H. Quraishi and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 135 (SCMR) (WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Petitioner Versus ABID HUSSAIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asif Hussain Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st October, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and Order of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 14-6-1984 in Miscellaneous Application No.77/84). --Art.212--Order of Service Tribunal for status quo--Clarification by Tribunal--Order against which leave to appeal was sought had distinctive features, (i) it related to and was sequel to a determination of fact as to whether when status quo order was passed by Tribunal, services of employee stood terminated or he was still an employee; (ii) order was interlocutory and lasted as long as an appeal was not decided and was even during that period open to modification if circumstances so justified; (iii) final determination of appeal on merit was yet to take place--Held, question raised in petition did not satisfy legal requirement of Art. 212, Constitution of Pakistan (1973), i.e. there was no question of law of general public 'importance such as may require further examination in Supreme Court--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The petitioner, WAPDA, seeks leave to appeal against an interlocutory order passed by the Service Tribunal on the 14th June, 1984 whereby the full implication of a status quo order passed by it on the 26th of April, 1984 was clarified. The respondent filed an appeal against the termination of his services which is still pending before the Service Tribunal. He sought interim relief pending the decision in appeal. A status quo order was passed by the Tribunal on 6th of April, 1984. The dispute arose between the parties as to how this status quo order was to be given effect to, i.e. by continuing the respondent in service as was contended by the respondent or by severing his employment in implementation of the impugned order as was contended by the petitioner. The Tribunal after an inquiry into factual aspect of the case, clarified the order in the following words:- "In the result, it is ordered that the status quo order passed on 26-4-1984 is still operative and binding on the respondent and that it shall be maintained till further orders in the main appeal. Meanwhile, the order of termination of the services of the Appellant shall not be treated as operative." The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this order is against law and fact for the services of the petitioner with the acceptance of the constitutional petition and consequent to it, stood terminated as from 21st of April, 1984 and he could not be continued in service on the basis of a status quo order passed by the Tribunal. The order against which leave to appeal is sought has two dis tinctive features. Firstly, it relates to and is sequel to a determination of fact as to when the status quo order was passed by the Tribunal the services of the respondent stood terminated or he was still an employee. Secondly, the order is interlocutory. It lasts as long as an appeal is not decided and is even during that period open to modification if circumstances so justify. A final determination of the appeal on merits is yet to take place. The question raised in the petition do not satisfy the legal requirement of Article 212 of the Constitution i.e. there is no question of law of general public importance such as may require further examination in this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. M.Z.M. Leave refused.