MUHAMMAD FARID KHAN vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
The appellant challenged the dismissal of his service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal on the ground of limitation, without his application for condonation of delay being considered during the hearing which was confined to the merits. His subsequent review application was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that it lacked the power to review its orders. Granting leave, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the dismissal was justified without examining the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court held that since the appellant had filed an application for condonation of delay, he was entitled to a proper consideration of that application before his appeal could be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision on the question of limitation after hearing the parties, establishing the principle that a litigant is entitled to a hearing and consideration of a delay condonation application before limitation is invoked against them.
- Whether an appellant is entitled to a consideration of an application for condonation of delay before an appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the power to review its earlier decisions under the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974?
- What is the proper course of action when a tribunal dismisses an appeal on limitation without hearing the appellant on that question or considering a delay condonation application?
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
- Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The appellant's grievance is that his appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal was dismissed on 28-3-1982 on the ground of limitation, although the appeal had been heard on merits and not on the question of limitation, nor had his application for condonation of the delay been considered during the hearing. He, thereupon, filed an application for review under rule 22 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974, in which he specifically took this grievance but the Tribunal dismissed the application, too, on 22-6-1982, on the ground that the said rule was not intended to enable the Tribunal to review its orders. The Tribunal, however, observed that "the proper remedy for the applicant was to approach the Supreme Court by way of appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution". He accordingly appealed to this Court and leave was granted to consider whether the dismissal of the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal was not justified, the Tribunal having not examined his application under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal had been held on 27-3.1982 and had been confined to the merits of the case and not on the question of limitation and the judgment had been reserved that when the judgment was announced on 28-3-1982 which was conveyed to him on 2-5-1982 it was found that the appeal had been dismissed not on merits but only on the question of limitation and that when this was brought to the notice of the Tribunal in the application under rule 22, the Tribunal did not examine the correctness of the assertion but expressed inability to review its earlier decision for want of an enabling provision in that regard. The factual aspect of the assertion is not controverted. Since the appellant bad filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, he was entitled to a consideration of that application before the bar of limitation was held against him. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 28-3-1982 and remand the matter to the Tribunal to decide the question of limitation afresh after hearing the parties.
Cited by 2 cases
- KHANIMULLAH Versus CHAIRMAN, WAPDA 1998 SCMR 2318
- NAZIR AHMAD Versus CHAIRMAN, WAPDA 1989 SCMR 329