NISARUL HAQ and anothers vs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. and anothers
This matter arises from an appeal against the order dated 31-12-1997 passed by the Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellants' appeals by referencing an earlier decision containing nineteen propositions of law without specifying which proposition applied to the case at hand. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a non-speaking order that fails to disclose the application of law to the specific facts of the case is sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order, lacking reasons and failing to indicate the applicable propositions, was not a speaking order and could not be sustained. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the cases back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The key principle laid down is that judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals must pass speaking orders providing clear reasoning and showing the application of relevant legal principles to the specific case rather than disposing of matters through vague general references.
- Whether an order passed by a Service Tribunal that fails to give reasons or indicate the applicability of legal propositions is a valid speaking order?
- Can an appellate court uphold a non-speaking administrative or tribunal order based on external arguments and contentions raised by counsel when the judgment itself is silent?
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The impugned order dated 31-12-1997 is not a speaking order. The appeals filed by the appellants have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Service Tribunal in terms of its earlier decision in Service Appeal No.2638(K) of 1997 wherein the Tribunal formulated as many as 19 propositions of law for decision. There is no indication in the impugned order as to which of the nineteen propositions framed by the Hon'ble Tribunal were applicable to the appeals before it. Learned counsel for the respondents attempted to support the impugned order of the Tribunal contending that the appeals have been dismissed on the points of retrospectively and limitation. It may be so but it does not appear from the impugned judgment. We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remand the cases to the Tribunal for decision in accordance with law. No order as to costs.