Pakistan Case LawWATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus ZAHOOR AHMED
This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had partly allowed the respondent employee's appeal by converting his order of removal from service into compulsory retirement. The core legal questions involved whether the Tribunal erred on the question of limitation and whether the Tribunal possessed the legal authority to substitute an order of removal with an order of compulsory retirement under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to condone delay and that, as an appellate forum, it had the power to substitute the punishment with a more appropriate one in suitable cases, relying on settled precedents. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the Tribunal's judgment and establishing that the Service Tribunal can modify penalties imposed under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act.
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to condone delay in filing an appeal?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal substitute an order of removal from service with an order of compulsory retirement under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act?
- Whether the Supreme Court interferes with the Tribunal's exercise of discretion regarding the condonation of delay?
ORDER
AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by WAPDA against the judgment dated 31-1-1993 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal in Appeal No, 1(0) of 1984, filed by the respondent, who was acting as the Line Superintendent-I at the relevant time against the order of his removal from service under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, allowing the same partly by converting the order of removal into compulsory retirement. The WAPDA has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2.In support of the above petition, Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the Tribunal failed to decide the question of limitation in accordance with law and secondly, his submission was that the Tribunal could not have substituted the order Of removal by the order of compulsory retirement.
3.Before dealing with the above contentions, we may observe that this is third round of litigation as the matter had come up before this Court twice earlier. Be that as it may, the above first contention as to the question of limitation is not tenable. Admittedly, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to condone the delay, which it did. Generally this Court does not examine the question of condonation of delay.
3-A. As regards the above second submission, it may be observed that the Tribunal has relied upon the case of WAPDA v. Abdul Sattar and 2 others (1990 SCM R 934) and the case of Aijaz Nabi Abbasi v. Water and Power Development Authority and another (1992 SCM R 774).
In the above first case, somewhat similar argument was urged but the same was repelled as under:--
"(2) In support of this petition it is urged that after the Tribunal had found that the Authority had sufficient reasons to take action against the respondents under section 17(1-A) it was not open to it to interfere with the orders made by the Authority.. It is difficult to accept this contention. As an appellate forum the learned Tribunal could not only examine whether the order made by the Authority was supported by material but in suitable cases it could substitute the order of the Authority with one which it deemed to be more appropriate. Leave is refused in all these petitions."
In the above second case, the above view was reiterated as follows:--
"However, in the present case as observed hereinabove, it was not even alleged before the Tribunal that the impugned action was mala fide or suffers from any of the above infirmities. The Tribunal has taken into consideration all aspects of the case and has substituted retirement in place of removal as under above subsection (1-A) of section 17, an employee of WAPDA can either be removed or be retired."
4.In this view of the matter, the petitioner has no case for the grant of leave. Leave is, accordingly, refused.
Cited by 5 cases
- LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Mst. SHARIFAN BIBI and another P LD 2010 Supreme Court 705
- LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus Mst. SHARIFAN BIBI 2010 PLD 705
- PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Collector, Kohat and another vs SHABBIR 2005 PLD Supreme Court 337
- ABDUL JABBAR vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and 4 others 2001 PLC 341
- Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad And 2 Others 1997 PLC (C.S.) 1047
Judges on this bench
- Saad Saood Jan2,559 judgments
- Ajmal Mian2,984 judgments
- Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui1,222 judgments