MAHMOOD AHMAD vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND Another
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by Mahmood Ahmad, a former Meter Inspector whose services were terminated by the Water and Power Development Authority under Section 17(3-A) of the WAPDA Act. His subsequent appeal before the Service Tribunal was dismissed in default due to non-appearance, and a restoration application was likewise rejected after the Tribunal noted a prior warning against default. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal was justified in refusing to recall its ex parte dismissal order where the counsel was busy elsewhere and the junior counsel arrived late. The Supreme Court held that no fault could be found with the Tribunal's order given the circumstances and the prior warning. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, laying down that an ex parte dismissal by a service tribunal for non-prosecution, following a clear warning against default, warrants no interference by the apex court under the given circumstances.
- Whether the Service Tribunal is justified in refusing to set aside an ex parte dismissal order when the appellant's counsel fails to appear due to engagement in the High Court?
- Does a service tribunal have the discretion to refuse the recall of an ex parte order given after a prior warning against default?
- Section 17(3-A), WAPDA Act
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-Mahmood Ahmed, petitioner, was serving as a Meter Inspector in WAPDA. By an order dated 9-12-1975 his services were terminated with immediate effect on payment of 30 days notice under sec--tion 17 (3-A) of WAPDA Act. He filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which by its order dated 16-1-1980 dismissed the appeal as no one was present to pt,)secute it. The petitioner applied for setting aside this ex parte order but that application was also dismissed. It is mentioned in the latter order that even on 10-6-1979 it had made clear to the petitioner that no future default would be condoned. It was despite this warning that the default was committed and the tribunal, therefore, declined to recall the ex parte order. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
2. 1t has been submitted before us that the learned counsel for the petitioner was busy before the High Court and could therefore, not appear before the Tribunal. It has further been submitted that his junior had been instructed to appear before the Tribunal but he reached twenty minutes late A petition for restoration was presented the same day. In these circumstance. It is prayed that leave to appeal be granted against the ex parte order.
3. We find no reason to accept the prayer of the petitioner. It wall the best order that could be passed in the circumstances by the Tribunal and we do not find any fault with it. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Cited by 1 case
- SAJID HAMID' MUFTI Versus NOOR-US-SABAH 1992 CLC 411