PEER MUHAMMAD vs MINISTRY OF PRODUCTION, ISLAMABAD
This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad, which rejected an application for the restoration of an appeal. The petitioner, having been dismissed from service, challenged his dismissal before the Service Tribunal. During the regular hearing, the petitioner's counsel sought an adjournment to contact his client, and the case was adjourned. On the adjourned date, neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared, leading the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution pursuant to the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules 1974. The Supreme Court heard the matter, found no plausible argument presented to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, and consequently dismissed the petition.
- Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution upon the non-appearance of the appellant and their counsel?
- Does the failure to present a plausible argument to set aside an order of the Service Tribunal warrant the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal?
- Section 19(1), Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules 1974
ORDER
' MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad rejecting Miscellaneous Application No, 69 of 1983 for restoration of Appeal No, 117/R of 1980.
2. Petitioner was dismissed from service. He challenged the dismissal order in Appeal No, 117/R of 1980 before the Service Tribunal which was posted for regular hearing on 28-11-1982. Learned counsel Mr. M. S. Siddiqui appeared on the said date and sought adjournment on the ground that he had not been able to contact his client whose assistance he would need for the prosecution of appeal. The case, on his request, was adjourned to 13-12-1982 and counsel for the parties were informed of this date. However, on 13-12-1982 neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared and, consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution under section 19(1) of Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules 1974. We have heard the learned counsel but he could not put any plausible argument to set aside the impugned order of the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.