Pakistan Case Law
2004 PLD Supreme Court 413

MUHAMMAD IQBAL CHAUDHRY and anothers vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2004 PLD Supreme Court 413
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petitions Nos.3837‑L and 3840‑L of 2002
Date2004-02-23
Judge(s)Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, and Rana Bhagwandas
Authored byIftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
ResultCase remanded
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

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.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • 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?
speaking judgmentremand of caseservice matterjudicial reasoningslipshod disposalnatural justice

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

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.