UNITED BANK LIMITED and others Versus Mian MANZOOR AHMED and others
This matter concerns civil petitions filed against interim orders passed by the Lahore High Court in service-related writ petitions. The petitioners challenged the High Court's jurisdiction, arguing that under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the Federal Service Tribunal possesses exclusive jurisdiction over the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent, who is classified as a civil servant. The petitioners contended that the High Court erred in granting an interim injunction restraining final orders in those disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court, while noting its general reluctance to interfere with interim orders of the High Court at an intermediate stage, declined to decide the merits of the jurisdictional challenge. Instead, the Court disposed of the petitions by directing the Registrar of the Lahore High Court to fix the pending applications regarding jurisdiction before the learned Judge in Chambers for an expeditious final disposal within fifteen days, thereby ensuring the jurisdictional question is addressed by the appropriate forum without further delay.
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings involving persons declared to be civil servants under Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with interim orders of the High Court at an intermediate stage of proceedings?
- Article 212, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Section 2-A, Service Tribunals Act 1973
ORDER
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J.--- By this common order, we intend to dispose of Civil Petitions Nos. 673 and 674 of 1999 arising out of identical interim orders, dated 25-1-1999 and 28-1-1999 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 981 and 1181 of 1999.
2.This is a service matter. The grievance of the petitioner is that the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred in such cases and the Federal Service Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction in respect of such matters as contemplated by Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It is contended that the (earned Judge in Chambers has fallen into an error in granting an interim injunction to the effect that no final order shall be passed in the disciplinary inquiry proceedings initiated against respondent No. 1.
3.Raja Muhammad Akram. Senior Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of the petitioners, vehemently argued that the attention of the learned Single Judge was drawn through C.M. No. 3 of 1999 to Section 2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and it was pointed out that the Hon'ble High Court had no jurisdiction in the matter because respondent No. 1 has been declared to be a civil servant and the jurisdiction in the matter vests exclusively in Federal Service Tribunal. However, the Hon'ble Single Judge did not dismiss the Writ Petition and vacate the Stay Order as prayed for and issued notice to respondent No. 1.
4.It is not necessary to go into merits of the case at this intermediate stage. This Court normally does not interfere with the interim orders of the High Court except in exceptional circumstances. Be that as it may, in the interest of expeditious disposal of the matter, we direct the Registrar, Lahore High Court to 'fix C.M. 3 of 1999 in Writ Petitions Nos. 981 and 1181 of 1999, before the learned Judge in Chambers seized of the matter forthwith so that the same is finally disposed of after hearing the parties within fifteen days from the receipt of this order. The learned counsel for the petitioners shall also move formal applications in this behalf to the learned Chief Justice, Lahore High Court.
5.With the above observation, both the petitions are disposed of.