'AYESHA A. MALIK, J.--- Through this petition, the petiti prays for the implementation of judgment dated 9-12-2011 issued b: Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore.
2. The basic issue of the petitioner is for the implementation judgment dated 9-12-2011 in her favour in Service Appeal No,? 2010. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has chal the said judgment by filing C.P.L.A before the Hon'ble Supreme but so far no stay has been ordered against the said judgment. F should be implemented.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Service Tribunal does not possess the requisite power under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 ("the Act") to implement or enforce its own judgment because the statute does not provide it with the necessary powers. He further argued that there is nothing in the Act which enables the Tribunal to execute its own judgment as it has no power to deal with contempt of court. He states that with the power of contempt, a court can ensure that its judgment is enforced. He also states that section 5 of the Act is limited to deciding the appeal. As such there is no power for enforcing the judgment in appeal.
4. Learned Law Officer argued to the contrary. He stated that the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction is not an executing court. He argued that section 5 of the Act provides that a Tribunal shall for the purpose of deciding any appeal be deemed to be a civil court and shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908. The Tribunal therefore, having all the powers of civil court can implement its own judgment. He places reliance on 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1186, PLD 1996 SC (AJ&K) 29, 2008 PLC (C.S.) 517 and 2012 PLC (C.S.) 106.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and reviewed the record ilable on the file.
6. The Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 is an Act for the establishment of a service tribunal to exercise jurisdiction regarding matters relating to terms and conditions of service within the Province of Punjab. Section 4 of the Act provides for an appeal to the Tribunal against the final order, whether original or appellate, made by a. Departmental authority with respect to terms and conditions of service. The powers of the Tribunal are contained in section 5 of the Act, which reads as follows:--- "Power of Tribunals.--- (1) A Tribunal may, on appeal, confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against.
(2) A Tribunal shall, for the purpose of deciding any appeal, be deemed to be a civil court and shall have the same powers as are vested in such Court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Act V of 1908) including the powers of.
(a) enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) Compelling the production of documents; and
(c) issuing commission for the examination of witnesses and documents.
(3) No court-fee shall be payable for preferring an appeal to, or filing, exhibiting or recording any document in or obtaining any document from a Tribunal."
Section 5(2) of the Act provides that a Tribunal shall have all the powers of a civil court under the Civil Procedure Code. The language which is being stressed upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and which requires consideration in this writ petition is "for the purposes of deciding any, appeal". Learned counsel for the petitioner reads this to mean that the Tribunal can only adjudicate upon an appeal and has no power to implement or enforce its judgment. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not cater to the correct interpretation of section 5. Section 5(2) declares that the Service A Tribunal has all the powers of a Civil Court when it decides an appeal. The meaning of "deciding any appeal" is not limited to bare adjudication but will include the powers necessary to ensure that its decision is executed in letter and spirit. To achieve this, the Tribunal has all the powers available to a civil court to execute its orders/judgments and ensure its implementation. The rule is embodied in the maxim Quando lex aliquid alicui concedit concedere videtur et lid sine quo res ipsa esse non potest. This maxim provides that whoever grants a thing is deemed also to grant that without which the grant itself would be of no effect. N.S. Bindra in the Interpretation of Statutes, Eighth Edition explains that whenever anything is authorized, or required to be done by a statute and it is found impossible to do that which is authorized, then the law will by necessary intendment provide the authorization to do that what its required to be done. Therefore, where a statute confers F jurisdiction, it also confers by implication, the power of doing all such acts or applying such means as are essential for its execution. Simply put the doctrine of implied power can be invoked when giving interpretation to the jurisdiction conferred upon a tribunal under a statute. So when section 5 of the Act confers the power on the Service Tribunal to decide an appeal, it also confers the power to ensure that its decision is complied with. If this interpretation is not given to section 5 it would render the power of adjudication by the Tribunal as dead letter because it would not have the power to enforce its decisions.
7. There is also another reason why constitutional jurisdiction cannot be used to enforce or implement the judgment of the service tribunal. Article 212 of the Constitution provides that Administrative Courts or Tribunal shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to matters relating to the terms and conditions of service for persons in the service of Pakistan.
Su bsection (2) of Article 212 says that no other court shall grant an injunction, make any order or entertain any proceeding in respect of any matter to which the exclusive jurisdiction of Administrative Court or the Tribunal extends. It has recently been held by the Hon'ble Su preme Court of Pakistan in an unreported judgment passed in Civil Appeal No,428-L of 2010 titled "The Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and another v. Sa ra Bani and another" which reads as under:--- "a matter relating to her terms and conditions of service could only approach the Tribunal for redressal of her grievance on whatever grounds available to her including mala fides, but could not approach the High Court as the prohibition/bar contained in the Article was absolute."
As the bar is absolute for any court, including the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution for adjudicating upon the 'terms and conditions of service, then such bar will also extend to executing the order/judgment of the Service Tribunal. As such Article 199 cannot be invoked for executing a decision that it is not competent to adjudicate upon.
8. The cases relied upon by the learned Law Officer were helpful. 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1186 holds that "Under section 5(2) of the Punjab Services Tribunals Act, 1974, the Tribunal has been given the powers to decide an appeal as a Civil Court. The Tribunal will have all the powers of the Civil Court to bring issue before it to a logical end like the Civil Court.- As under section 36 of the C.P.C, the Civil Court can get its orders implemented/executed under the provisions of the C.P.C. Likewise, the Tribunal also has the same powers to bring its decision to a logical end in the shape of its implementations in its letter and spirit.
' In view of the above, the Punjab Service Tribunal being a Civil Court within the meaning of section 5(2) of the Service Tribunal Act, 1974, it can get its order enforced/executed as observed in the preceding paragraph."
' PLD 1996 SC (AJ&K) 29 holds that, "The rule makes it clear that the law requires total obedience of orders passed by the Service Tribunal. In my view the Service Tribunal is possessed with adequate powers to see that its orders are implemented. It is an accepted principle of law that when a jurisdiction is conferred on a Court or Tribunal to pass an order the power to have the order implemented as implicit in that jurisdiction. In the interpretation of Statutes by Maxwell, 1962 Edition, at page 350 under monograph "Implied Powers and Obligations" there is a' statement to the following effect:--- ' Where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution. Cui jurisdictio data est, ea quoque concessa esse videntur, sin quibus jurisdictio explicari non potuit."
' This well-known principle was upheld by the Su preme Court of Pakistan in Commissioner, Khairpur Division Khairpur v. Ali Sher Sa rki PLD 1971 SC 242. Therefore, as I read it, the power of implementing its orders is available to the Service Tribunal"
2012 PLC (C.S.) 106 holds that:- "The above provision of law leads us to conclude that since the Balochistan Service Tribunal is a civil Court for the purpose of deciding any appeal regarding the terms and conditions of a civil servant, therefore, it has all the powers of a civil court including those required to implement its judgments as provided under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
' In view of the above legal position, the Balochistan Service Tribunal, being a civil court within the meaning of section 5(2) of the Balochistan Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in case of the disobedience of its judgment the same can be enforced under the applicable provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 if the petitioner approaches the Tribunal. The petitioner, therefore, has an alternate and efficacious remedy available to him and in case he wants to seek enforcement of the judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal he may approach the Tribunal for enforcement thereof."
9. The Service Tribunal is therefore, vested with the power to do complete justice; adjudicate and then enforce. Since the Tribunal may on appeal confirm, set-aside, vary or modify the order appealed against, it can also implement such orders/judgments. There is nothing in section 5 which limits the powers of Service Tribunal to simply adjudicating upon an appeal.
Article 212 of the Constitution read with Section 5 of the Act is absolutely clear; the Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to decide on matters relating to terms and conditions of persons in the service of Pakistan and have exclusive jurisdiction to ensure that their orders are duly implemented.
10. Finally to address the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Service Tribunal cannot implement its decision because it does not possess the power conferred on a court to take action for contempt of court. The said argument holds 'no force because the power of contempt of court is not used for implementing an order but is used to punish a person who abuses or obstructs the process of the court or in any way disobeys the order of the Court. In the instant case, the petitioner's grievance is that the respondents are not implementing judgment dated 9-12-2011.This grievance can be redressed by the Punjab Service Tribunal itself. The petitioner can seek implementation of the judgment before the Service Tribunal if he so desires.