' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---These appeals by leave of the Court are directed against the judgment dated 21-5-1981 of the Punjab Service Tribunal.
2. Both the appellants are aggrieved against the same judgment of the Tribunal and have filed separate appeals. This judgment would dispose of both the appeals.
3. The facts, in brief, are that the Government of Punjab in relaxation of Rule 22 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, on 12-10-1974 appointed the appellants alongwith six others as Additional District and Sessions Judges on ad hoc basis for a period of six months. Their ad hoc appointments were revived by notification dated 3-5-1975, 3-11- 1975, 19-4-1976, 1-10-1976 and 15-4-1977. On 10-9-1977 the Governor of Punjab approved the appointment of 13 ad hoc Additional District & Sessions Judges including the two appellants in relaxation of service rules. It was done on account of individual hardship case. It was also notified that the appointment on regular basis would take effect from 1-10-1978. The appellants being aggreived against the decision of Government whereby they were not regularly appointed with effect from the date of their induction in service on 12-10-1974 approached the Service Tribunal for redressing their grievance. The Service Tribunal dismissed their appeals. In para. 13 of the judgment, it was stated as follows:- "We cannot help observing that the treatment meted out to the appellants by the Government has caused great hardship to them as they have been deprived of four years of service but we cannot help them by giving them that they cannot get under the Jaw."
' In para. 14 of the judgment, it has been stated as follows:- "Before parting with this case and in view of our earlier observation that case of the appellants was a case of hardship, we therefore, recommend to Government/Governor to reconsider their prayer vis-a-vis the relief claimed by them before us."
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were appointed on the recommendation of the High Court on the regular basis. The appellants' service from October 1974 to 1978 being regular, the Service Tribunal has erred in law by not granting the relief to the appellants in spite of. The observations made in paras 13 and 14 of the judgment favourable to the appellants. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, these appeals are to be allowed on the ground that the Service Tribunal has erred in law. It has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it. It had the jurisdiction to dispose of the appeals on merits instead of making recommendation to the Government. This Court in M. Yamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1980 SC 22 has observed that "It goes without saying that it lies within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and, indeed, it is its obligation, to decide all questions of law and fact sought to be raised by the appellant". This Court again reiterated the same legal principle in Shafiuddin, Deputy Director v. Surat Khan Marri, D.R.I.O. 1991 SCM R 2216 as hereunder:-- "Prima facie, the argument of the learned counsel appears to be attractive and to some extent also has the support of judgment of this Court in M. Yamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1980 SC 22. It was observed therein that it is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and indeed "its obligation" to decide all questions of "law and fact". It was further held that as a legal proposition Tribunal has "wide powers under section 5 of the Act, as it may on appeal confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against". A hope/expectation was also expressed in the said judgment that the Service Tribunal presided over generally by a serving or a retired Judge of the High Court "would be able to do full justice to the appellant".
5. We, therefore, without adverting to the merits of the case, consider it proper to remand the case to the Tribunal for adjudication on merits in accordance with law.
6. The appeals are allowed and the cases are remanded to the Service Tribunal for decision. There will be no order as to costs.