MUHAMMAD ANAYET GONDAL vs The REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE and another
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, which had set aside an impugned finding against the petitioner and remanded the case for a fresh decision after providing a fair opportunity of defense. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal, having powers under section 6 of the Punjab Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal Act to confirm, set aside, vary, or modify an order, lacks the power to remand a case for a de novo inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal possesses incidental and ancillary powers, including the power of remand, as it is vested with the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The key principle laid down is that the statutory grant of jurisdiction to a court or tribunal inherently includes powers reasonably incidental and ancillary to the effective exercise of that jurisdiction, thereby permitting remand despite the absence of explicit remand terminology in the statute.
- Whether the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal has the power to remand a case for a decision afresh?
- Does a statutory grant of jurisdiction to a Tribunal implicitly confer powers reasonably incidental and ancillary to the effective exercise of its jurisdiction?
- Section 6, Punjab Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal Act
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
ORDER
' EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 16-1- 2015 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore whereby it allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner, set aside the impugned finding against him and sent the case back for decision afresh after providing him a fair chance to defend himself.
2. The petitioner appearing in person contended that where the Tribunal hearing an appeal has limited powers in view of the provisions contained in section 6 of the Punjab Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal Act to confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed A against, it could not send the case back to the Departmental Authority for decision afresh on de novo enquiry, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable under the law. The petitioner to support his contention placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Abdul Khaliq, Primary Teacher, Primary School Rajkot, Tehsil and District Muzaffarabad v. Zaheer Ahmed and 4 others (2000 PLC (C. S.) 706).
3. We have gone through the record, the relevant statute carefully and considered the submissions of the petitioner addressed at the bar.
4. Before we appreciate the controversy stirred before us by the petitioner, it is worthwhile to refer to the provision, referred to by the petitioner. It reads as under:-- "6. Powers of Tribunal.---(1) The Tribunal may, on appeal, confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against.
(2) The Tribunal shall, for the purpose of deciding any appeal, be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have the same powers as are vested in such Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), including the powers of--
(a) enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) compelling the production of documents; and
(c) issuing commission for the examination of witnesses and documents."
5. A look at subsection (1) of the above quoted provision would reveal that the Tribunal on appeal may confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against. Subsection (2) of the said provision clearly provides that the Tribunal shall, for the purpose of deciding any appeal, be deemed to be a civil court and shall have the same powers as are vested in such court under the Code of Civil Procedure including the powers mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c). Where the Legislature in its wisdom has conferred on the Tribunal all the powers as are vested in the civil court, we are afraid the argument addressed by the petitioner being based on partial view of the provision is not correct. The same error crept across the judgment rendered in the case of Abdul Khaliq, Primary Teacher, Primary School Rajkot, Tehsil and District Muzaffarabad v. Zaheer Ahmed and 4 others (supra). Even otherwise, it is a settled principle of law that where a statute confers a jurisdiction on a Court or Tribunal it also confers by implication the powers which are reasonably incidental and ancillary to effective exercise of jurisdiction. When seen in this background, we do not think the petitioner could make out a case for interference.
6. For the reasons discussed above, this petition being without merit is dismissed and the leave asked for is refused.