1. 1 to 5. The case of the petitioners, shortly, is that a non-executory decision was rendered by the Secretary to the Government of Sindh in the irrigation and Power Department in the exercise of powers of the Provincial Government conferred by section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, which inter alia, opens the channel of approach to the Provincial Government, "where the Electric Inspector fails to decide the matter of difference or dispute within the said period or where either the licensee or the consumer declines to accept the decision of the Electric Inspector", the matter being made referable to the Provincial Government "whose decision shall be final". It is maintained that in spite of the Provincial Government opining in favour of the petitioners on such a reference as aforesaid, per order dated 20-3-1993, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 have failed to act upon the directives embodied in such order. Hence the present petition has been brought, the learned counsel saying that the Provincial Government even though accorded finality in its decision has not been empowered to implement its own decision. Attention of the learned counsel was drawn to an argument raised in Abdul Bari v. Government of Pakistan, PLD 1981 Karachi 290, that the Tribunal there had not been "empowered to implement its own decision although it has power to alter or amend the orders appealed against" (para. 10, page 303). The Full Bench of this Court dealt with the question in these words:-- "I 1. As to the second ground urged by the counsel, we have already referred to the exposition of law as to the scope of the powers of the Tribunal as enunciated in the case of Yameen Qureshi in which their lordships have referred to section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act and to the powers conferred upon the Tribunals for the purpose of deciding appeals. It seems that the Tribunal is fully empowered to exercise all the powers of a Civil Court while disposing of appeals. In view of these observations of the Supreme Court we are unable to hold that the Tribunal established under the Act is not a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction on the ground that it has no express authority to implement its decision. In any case the argument itself implies that up to the stage of decision of the appeal, the jurisdiction of the 'tribunal is exclusive and therefore, for the present purposes I do not consider it necessary to further pursue the matter as to the powers of the Tribunal to implement its decisions. The learned Deputy Attorney-General made a categorical concession that the Service Tribunal is fully empowered to pass orders for an interim relief as such orders arc ancillary to the power of final adjudication conferred on the Tribunal as held in the case of Sindh Employees' Social Security v. Adamjee Cotton Mills Ltd. PLD 1975 SC 32. On the same principles it was submitted by the learned Deputy Attorney-General, the Service Tribunal will have all the powers to implement its decisions." (Emphasis added).
2. It is correct that the above reproduced observations occur in relation to a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction, accorded by the Constitution of Pakistan itself in terms of Article 212 thereof. Even so, it would be idle to urge that law having conferred finality on a decision would stop short of creating a machinery for duly giving effect to such finality in rendition of a decision. In finality A enforceability is implicit. We, therefore, in line with the above dicta expect that the petitioners would move the Provincial Government itself for seeking due implementation/compliance with its above-referred decision dated 20-3-1993. Hopefully, such decision would be duly given effect to within a period of a fortnight of the petitioners's so moving the Government. In the above terms, we dispose of this petition.