MUHAMMAD LATIF BHATTI And Another vs The CHAIRMAN, A.E.B.(E) WAPDA
The two petitions under Article 212(3) of the Constitution raise a common question of law concerning whether a service grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, filed under a misconception of law, can be considered sufficient compliance with rule 11 of the Water and Power Development Authority (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, to invoke the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act read with section 17 of the Water and Power Development Authority Act. A further question examined is whether non-compliance with rule 11 of the said rules could be ignored in entertaining and adjudicating the petitioners' appeals. Noting a divergence of opinion on the matter, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to provide an authoritative pronouncement.
- Can a service grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance be taken as sufficient compliance with rule 11 of the Water and Power Development Authority (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978?
- Whether non-compliance with rule 11 of the Water and Power Development Authority (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 can be ignored for entertaining and adjudicating appeals by the Service Tribunal?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance
- Rule 11, Water and Power Development Authority (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978
- Section 4, Service Tribunals Act
- Section 17, Water and Power Development Authority Act
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The two petitions under Article 212(3) of the Constitution raise a common question of law, namely, whether a service grievance notice under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance under misconception of law can be taken to be a sufficient compliance with the requirement of rules (rule 11) of Water and Power Development Authority (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 to justify the invoking of the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act read with section 17 of the Water and Power Development Authority Act.
2. The question which further requires examination is whether on facts and circumstances of the case the non-compliance with the provisions of rule 11 of the WAPDA Efficiency and Discipline Rules could have been ignored for entertaining and adjudicating on the appeals filed by the two petitioners. As the questions of law are likely to arise in a number of cases and there has been, according to the judgment of the Service Tribunal itself divergence of opinion over it leave to appeal is granted so that an authoritative pronouncement is forthcoming.