WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM
This appeal by leave is directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 22-10-1984, whereby the respondent's removal from service as a Line Superintendent Grade II in WAPDA under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act was set aside. The core legal question involves the extent of the ouster of jurisdiction under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act and whether the Federal Service Tribunal could assume jurisdiction to interfere with removal orders passed by WAPDA. The Supreme Court held, following its prior precedent in WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi (1986 SCMR 18), that the Tribunal's jurisdiction stands resolved, and since the appellant failed to place any material or record before the Tribunal or the Supreme Court to justify the action taken against the respondent, no ground was made out to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that while section 17(1-A) restricts jurisdiction, the employer must still substantiate or justify the factual basis of the action when challenged before the appropriate forum.
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere with orders passed under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act?
- Is it necessary for WAPDA to justify the action taken under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act when challenged before a judicial forum?
- Section 17(1-A), WAPDA Act
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is an appeal by leave against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 22-10-1984.
2. Muhammad Akram, a Line Superintendent Grade II in the WAPDA, was removed from service on 12-1-1983 under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. He questioned his removal through an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was accepted through the impugned order. Hence the present appeal.
3. Leave in this case was granted to consider whether in view of the complete ouster of jurisdiction under section 17(1-A) 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 appellant and the respondent who is present in person. 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.
5. The appeal filed by the respondent was accepted by the Tribunal on the ground that no material was placed before it to justify action against the respondent under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. 1flere too the appellant did not produce any record to convince us that the proposed action against the respondent was justified. We, therefore, see no ground to interfere in the matter. The appeal is dismissed.