1. The petitioners who were appointed as temporary Patwaries at different places in district Sialkot subject to relaxation in age by the competent authority. They were appointed in May, 1983, and continued working as such without any pay. The petitioners when failed to get their emoluments untimately filed an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and prayed for direction to the respondents to pay their salaries from May, 1983. The appeal was admitted to regular hearing. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 29-4-1987, has now proceeded to dispense with services of the petitioners as the Board of Revenue has declined to grant relaxation in their ages.
2. The petitioners through the present application want that the operation of the order, dated 29-4- 1987, should be suspended. The application is misconceived and I am afraid that the order cannot be suspended in the title appeal. Powers of the Punjab Service Tribunal have been enumerated in section 5 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 and for the purpose of present application subsection 2 is relevant which reads as under:- "2. The Tribunal shall, for 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 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Act V of 1908) The Punjab Service Tribunals, 1974 by legal fiction assumes Tribunal to be a civil Court for deciding appeals and enjoying powers vested in such Court under the CPC."
3. It is thus clear that the Tribunal while deciding the appeal enjoys the powers provided in order XLI, section 96 and 100, CPC. Their Lordship of the Supreme Court of Pakistan has clearly held in PLD 1986 SCMR 965, that the Tribunal enjoys only powers relating to the appeals and no other provision. Now relevant provision dealing with the matter is contained in rule 5, Order XLI, CPC, which reads as under:- "5. Stay by Appellate Court.--(1) An appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree; but the Appellate Court may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree."
2. It is clear that the order which is subject-matter of this application is not an order impugned in the appeal. I exercising the powers under the above quoted rule can suspend an impugned order or judgment but has no jurisdiction to suspend an order, which is not independent of the impugned order and furnishes a fresh grievance. The petitioners have to first impugne the same in the proper form and then make request for suspension of the same. In nutshell the legal position is that an order, which is not subject-matter of the appeal, cannot be suspended or dealt with in the appeal already pending. Petitioners have independent remedy against the order dated 19-4-1987, as it is neither in continuation nor part of the earlier order impugned in the titled appeal. The application is misconceived and hence dismissed.
4. A.E./139/Sr.P