Shaikh AFTAB AHMED Versus

1. HAMZO KHAN M. KURESHI (CHAIRMAN).‑--- As all these three appeals involve common question of law and facts, they are being disposed of by this single judgment.

2. The brief facts are that the appellants were temporary Junior Surveyors In Revenue Department of Karachi. Appellant Aftab Ahmed was discharged from service on 7‑4‑1971 while the service of appellant Abdul Hameed was terminated on 6‑11‑1971 and appellant Mohammad Ahmed was removed from service on 3‑4‑1971.

3. All these three appellants sought relief by filing Civil Suits before the III & VI Additional District Judges at Karachi. Due to change in law the Civil Suits of appellants Mohammad Ahmed and Aftab Ahmed abated on 30‑4‑1974 respectively. The suit of appellant Abdul Hameed abated on 20‑4‑1974. Thereafter appellants Aftab Ahmed and Mohammad Ahmad filed appeals before this Tribunal on 20‑5‑1974 while appellant Abdul Hameed filed the present appeal on 20‑6‑1974.

4. The contention of the appellants inter alla is that their termination and removal from services were illegal as no regular enquiry was conducted by the competent authority and that they have been removed from service without just cause:

5. The counsel for the respondents at the outset raised a legal plea on the point of jurisdiction. He argued that the abatement orders passed by learned Additional District Judges on 30‑4‑1974 and 20‑4‑1974 were not in accordance with law. He contended that section 6 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act did not apply to those cases which were not pending immediately before the extension of Article 212(2) to this Tribunal. The provisions of the above Article were extended to this Tribunal by Parliament on 6‑5‑1974 whereas the orders of abatement by the learned Additional District Judges were passed on 20‑4‑74 and 30‑4‑74. He contends that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals because they are not covered by section 6 of Sind Service Tribunals Act.

6. We have heard the arguments of the Advocates of both the parties and perused the record.

7. It is admitted position that the suits of the appellants were not pending, in any Court when the provisions of Article 212(2) of the Constitution were extended to this Tribunal on 6‑5‑1974. They had abated by the order Of the civil Courts much earlier than the extension of the above Article to this A Tribunal. When the suits were not pending in any Court, they could not be said to be pending immediately' before the extension of the said Article to this Tribunal and would not he covered by section 6 of Sind Service Tribunals Act. The orders of the civil Courts in abating the suits nosy be illegal but this Tribunal is not the appellate authority of these Courts to set aside their orders. We have to follow the law as it is framed in section 6 of Service Tribunals Act. We have already held in a number of cases that this Tribunal will have no jurisdiction in an appeal if the suit, appeal or application of the appellant was not pending in any Court on 6‑5‑1974. This Tribunal can not therefore take cognizance of these appeals.

8. We therefore hold that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction and all the appeals are dismissed without any order for costs.

9. Appeal dismissed.