MUHAMMAD IQBAL CHAUDHRY and anothers vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others
These petitions for leave to appeal were filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeals. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the impugned judgment and observed that the Service Tribunal had failed to dilate upon the respective legal and factual contentions raised by the parties, instead disposing of the cases through general remarks about the petitioners' conduct and in a slipshod manner. The Court held that judicial forums are legally required to pass speaking judgments that clearly demonstrate a thorough consideration and decision of all raised legal and factual aspects in light of recognized legal principles. Consequently, with the consent of both parties, the Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals, allowed them, and remanded the cases to the Federal Service Tribunal for a fresh, expeditious decision on the merits within three months.
- Is a judicial or quasi-judicial forum required to pass a speaking judgment addressing all legal and factual contentions raised by the parties?
- Can a judgment be sustained if it merely reproduces the pleadings of the parties but fails to analyze their respective contentions?
- What is the appropriate appellate remedy when a lower tribunal disposes of a service appeal in a slipshod manner without deciding the core issues?
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---These petitions have been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 13th September, 2002 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby appeals filed by petitioners have been dismissed.
2. There is no need to marshal the facts of the case in detail because with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties while going through the impugned judgment we have noted that Service Tribunal had not dilated upon the respective contentions of the parties' counsel put forward before it and had decided the cases by just making general remarks about the conduct of the petitioners.
3. It may be noted that the forums seized with the judicial matters are required to pass such a speaking judgment that it should give an impression to readers that the legal and factual aspects of the case which were raised before it for the purpose of decision have been considered and decided in the light of recognized principles of law on the subject instead of disposing of in slipshod manner.
4. We have noted with great concern that in instant cases although the pleadings of the parties had been reproduced through and through but the contentions of the parties and the points on which they were resting their cases were not taken into consideration at all. Be that as it may, in these circumstances, both the sides stated that instead of allowing the petitions to remain pending on the file, if leave is granted, the cases may be remanded to the Service Tribunal for fresh decision after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove.
Thus for the foregoing reasons, petitions are converted into appeals and allowed. Cases are remitted to the Service Tribunal for expeditious disposal as far as possible within a period of three months preferably.
Cited by 13 cases
- Rasool Bux (present on bail) vs The State 2025 SHC HYD 1787
- Munibah Qureshi Versus National University of Sciences and Technology (Nust) 2026 MLD 1086
- Ahsan Ali Dawach vs The State through Chairman NAB & others 2025 SCP 248
- AHSAN ALI DAWACH Versus State 2025 SCMR 1041
- M/s Medequips vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue and 3 others 2024 LHC 4277, 2024 PTD 1566
- Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence, etc vs District Bar Association, Rahim Yar Khan, etc 2022 PLJ Lahore 997
- M/s. ARY Communication Pvt Ltd vs The Federation of Pakistan 2020 SHC 1010
- Mst. RAZYA GHULAM and anothers vs The GENERAL PUBLIC 2015 PLD Balochistan 127
- STATE through DPG vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE through Naib Tehsildari PLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Quetta) 662
- State Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE 2016 PCrLJ 1711
- Mst. RAFIQUE BIBI vs MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and others 2014 MLD 251
- MANSOOR AHMAD vs NUSRAT MALIK and another 2012 PLJ Lahore 114
- Munibah Qureshi vs National University of Science & Technology (NUST) 2025 IHC 406