1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The two petitions under Article 212(3) of the Constitution raise a common question of law, namely, whether a service grievance notice under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance under misconception of law can be taken to be a sufficient compliance with the requirement of rules (rule 11) of Water and Power Development Authority (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 to justify the invoking of the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act read with section 17 of the Water and Power Development Authority Act.
2. The question which further requires examination is whether on facts and circumstances of the case the non-compliance with the provisions of rule 11 of the WAPDA Efficiency and Discipline Rules could have been ignored for entertaining and adjudicating on the appeals filed by the two petitioners. As the questions of law are likely to arise in a number of cases and there has been, according to the judgment of the Service Tribunal itself divergence of opinion over it leave to appeal is granted so that an authoritative pronouncement is forthcoming.