GHULAM ABBAS vs WAPDA
This appeal by leave challenges an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal on the grounds of limitation. The appellant, a former Lineman Grade II with WAPDA, was dismissed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. After initially approaching the Labour Court, the appellant filed an appeal with the Federal Service Tribunal, which was rejected as time-barred. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Federal Service Tribunal could assume jurisdiction to interfere with WAPDA service orders, particularly in light of the ouster of jurisdiction clause contained in Section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act. Relying on the precedent established in WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi (1986 SCMR 18), the Supreme Court affirmed that the Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeal. Furthermore, the Court held that the appellant failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal on the basis of limitation and the established jurisdictional limitations regarding WAPDA employees.
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to interfere with service orders passed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act?
- Can an appeal be entertained by the Federal Service Tribunal if it is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation without reasonable explanation?
- Section 17(1-A), WAPDA Act 1958
- Section 17(1-C), WAPDA Act 1958
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is an appeal by leave against the, order of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 26th August 1984.
2. The appellant was serving as Lineman Grade II and was dismissed from service on 24-12-1981 under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. He then approached the Labour Court but his grievance petition was returned to him on 2-3-1983 for presentation in the proper Court. He then filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal on 12-3-1983 which was dismissed through the impugned order on the question of limitation.
3. Leave in this case was granted to consider whether in view of the complete ouster of jurisdiction under section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, the learned Tribunal could assume jurisdiction and interfere with the orders of the WAPDA in respect of persons employed or serving under it.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal stands finally resolved by this Court in the case reported as WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi 1986 SCMR 18. As for the appeal before the Tribunal, the same has been rightly dismissed by the learned Tribunal on the question of the limitation. Here too the learned counsel for the appellant could not give any reasonable explanation for filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation. The appeal is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.