1. These petitions are directed against a common order namely, that comprised in the Notification dated 23-8-1995, whereby the petitioners' services were terminated by the Secretary to the Government of Sind in the Excise and Taxation Department. The respondents, upon pre-admission notices, have urged that the petitions are barred because such relief, as has been sought, can only be obtained from the Service Tribunal. As to this, the learned counsel for petitioners say that the impugned order being mala fide and void the jurisdiction of this Court can also be invoked.
2. However, in view of the dicta in Shakeel Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan 1995 PLC (C.S.) 1221 and Shakeel Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan 1995 PLC (C.S.) 1226, even though there may be some substance in what the learned counsel for petitioners by way of a legal proposition, say this Court is reluctant to A extend relief in matters where a Tribunal constituted under Constitutional mandate is available as an alternative or even as a primary forum. This aspect as well is distinguished by the learned counsel for petitioners, who say that the Sind Service Tribunal is currently without a Chairman and, therefore, in effect, non-functional. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Sind on his part maintains that the vacancy is likely to be filled in not to distant a future.
3. Another aspect of the case, which has been brought to our notice, from the side of the petitioners, is that the same impugned notification has already been questioned by some of the affectees by taking appeals to the Service Tribunal and those appeals are pending. If that be so, surely, the petitioners can seek to be impleaded in those appeals and may adequately be heard. Besides, they can file appeals of their own, if so advised, which, in course of the, can be heard and disposed of. The learned counsel for petitioners, however, apprehend that in such an event, that is to say, if the petitioners prefer appeals of their own they may be confronted with questions of limitation coating in their way. All that can be said on the subject is that if an order is shown to have been passed in colourable exercise of power or is otherwise a void order the pleas of limitation, if any, have to be judged in that background.
4. In the circumstances, discussed per paragraph proceeding hereto, we dispose of these petitions leaving the petitioners to pursue their remedies in the Sind Service Tribunal. Correspondingly, the miscellaneous applications pending in these petitions are also disposed of, as having served their respective purposes.