ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has said the purpose of establishing an exclusive tribunal is to ensure that appeals are decided expeditiously and not delayed at the whims or wishes of the parties or under the garb of frivolous applications.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi decided an appeal against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad.
“If all the intricacies or nitty-gritties of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) are made applicable, allowed, encouraged, or taken into consideration in every case without any lawful justification, then the whole purpose of creating a Service Tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction would be seriously undermined and prejudiced and matters will likely be dragged for an unusual period, given the complexities and convolution of the CPC, like it happens in the Civil Courts, which seemingly go beyond the legislature’s intention to provide speedy justice to the aggrieved civil servants.
As far as the remedy against the order and judgment of the Service Tribunal is concerned, not only there exists a right to file a review petition, even against the final order or judgment of the Service Tribunal, there also exists a right to file an appeal in this Court under Article 212 of the Constitution. Therefore, filing an application under Section 12(2) CPC with the prayer to dismiss a Miscellaneous Petition (M.P.) moved for implementation of a judgment of the FST is no solution after the judgement has attained finality up till this Court.
According to the facts, the FST, vide its consolidated judgment dated 14.10.2015 passed in Appeal No.1879 to 1883(R)CS/2013, directed the petitioners (Railways) to upgrade the post of respondent (employee – Muhammad Amir), Signal Maintainer (SMR) at Multan Division, from BS-8 to BS-10 to maintain harmony and congruence with the employees posted at Rawalpindi Division for the same position in BS-10.
Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railway, Multan and another, challenged the FST order before the Supreme Court, which dismissed the department appeal, thus the judgment of the FST attained finality.
The appellants (employees) in Appeal(s) No.1879 to 1883(R)CS/2013 filed M.Ps. No.2184 to 2188/2016 for implementation of the judgment of the FST dated 14.10.20150. The department also filed M.P. No.1893/2018 under Section 12(2) read with Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC with the prayer that the implementation petition be dismissed as the employees of Rawalpindi Division are not working in BS-10, therefore the impugned judgment of the FST was based on misrepresentation and fraud, and was thus liable to be set aside. However, the FST dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.11.2021.
The SC judgment said that the validity of a judgment, decree, or order under Section 12(2), CPC, can only be challenged on the plea of fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction. However, the petitioners (department) did not file Misc. Petition for setting aside the main judgment of the FST but only prayed for dismissal of M.P. No.2184/2016, filed by the respondent (employees) for implementation of the original order of the FST on the grounds that since the respondent/petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands, his M.P. is liable to be dismissed with cost; that the M.P. was not maintainable in the eyes of the law.
All such sweeping grounds were alien to the provisions of Section 12(2), CPC, for setting aside any judgment and decree, the judgment noted.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments