MUHAMMAD IQBAL CHAUDHRY and another's vs SECRETARY
These petitions for leave to appeal were brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeals. The core legal question was whether a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal fulfills its legal duty when it reproduces the pleadings and decides a case on general remarks without substantively addressing and adjudicating the specific contentions raised by the parties. The Supreme Court observed that forums seized with judicial matters are under a mandatory duty to render speaking judgments demonstrating that all relevant factual and legal aspects raised before them were duly considered and decided in accordance with recognized principles of law, rather than disposing of matters in a slipshod manner. Noting that the Service Tribunal failed to evaluate the parties' contentions, the Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals, allowed them, and remanded the matter to the Federal Service Tribunal for expeditious fresh disposal within three months after hearing all concerned.
- Is a judicial tribunal required to pass a speaking judgment addressing the specific legal and factual contentions raised by the parties?
- Whether the mere reproduction of pleadings and general remarks on conduct satisfies the legal requirements of an adjudicatory judgment?
- Can a judgment passed by a Service Tribunal in a slipshod manner be set aside and remanded for fresh decision on the consent of the parties?
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 a were raised before it for the purpose of decision have been considered and decided in the light of recognised principles of law on the subject instead of disposing of in slip shod manner.
4. We have noted with great concern that in instant cases although he 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 herein in above.
Thus for the foregoing reasons, petition 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.