1. ' WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---We have heard this matter. It is pointed out by Mr. Niaz Ahmed Khan, the learned counsel representing the respondents, that the dispute raised by the petitioner stands finally settled by a decision of the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No, 51(K) of 1992, rendered on 17-3-1993, where the operative part is this:-- "It has been further added that completion of pre-service training is compulsory for the appointment but annual increment cannot be disallowed to an employee who has performed that duty for more than six months in a year continuously and this point has also been cleared by the Establishment Division in the light of F.R.
24. Since none of the respondents have filed comments in this appeal, we have no alternative but to direct the Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation, Islamabad to decide this matter within a period of three months. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of. A copy of the memo. Of appeal and letter also be sent to the Chairman, P.T.C., Islamabad, along with the order of the Tribunal for further action."
2. ' According to Mr. Niaz Ahmed Khan, the petitioner, who was the appellant before the Federal Service Tribunal, preferred Miscellaneous Petition No, 72 of 1993 where he complained of non- implementation of the aforesaid order dated 17-3-1993 but such miscellaneous petition was dismissed on 7-11-1993 upon an observation that the order, in fact, stood implemented by refusing the claim of the petitioner-appellant. Operative part of the order dated 7-11-1993 is as below:-- "2. The appellant today submitted an application for adjournment of the case as his Advocate was not available, but the request was declined as it is a matter of simple implementation of the orders of the Tribunal. Mr. Niaz Ahmed Khan, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the claim of the appellant was examined and turned down, in view of the observations of the Tribunal, and the decision of the Tribunal stands implemented In the light of the comments filed by the respondents, the claim of the appellant having been finally turned down, there is no question of implementation of the order of the Tribunal as the Tribunal had directed the respondent department to consider the case of the appellant in accordance with law. The application is consequently rejected."
3. ' It is next pointed out by Mr. Niaz Ahmed Khan that the same controversy was raised by the appellant before the same Tribunal through Appeal No, 252(K) of 1993 but that appeal, brought on 6-12-1993, was dismissed on 6-1-1994 on the ground that the dispute had already been agitated and decided.
4. ' As against this the petitioner has shown us two letters, the first of which is dated 14-10-1993, addressed by the Divisional Engineer to the Director, P.T.C. Accounts, Lahore, wherein the following passage occurs:- "(2) On the appeal of Mr. Asad All Khan the case was taken up with Audit but audit was not convinced and held that recovery is rightly pointed out by audit. The audit's point of view is quite clear from their two letters. Meanwhile the case was discussed in P.A.C. Meeting along with other cases of over payment/wrong fixation of pay. At this stage it is not possible to decide the case at the Headquarters level. It is, however, suggested that reply may be submitted in the Federal Service Tribunal explaining full facts of the case.
(3) In view of the above the Director, P.T.C. Accounts is requested to kindly engage an Advocate at Karachi and formulate a written reply to the Miscellaneous Petition on the above facts and submitted in the Service Tribunal, Karachi at the earliest, under intimation to this H.Q." (Emphasis supplied).
5. ' In the other letter dated 21-11-1993, addressed by the Director-General, Audit, Post, Telegraph and Telephones, Lahore, to the Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation, the under-noted excerpt is relevant:-- "(3) It is very, kindly brought to your notice that the three months period specified in the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal judgment has already expired on 16-6-1993 and consequently the appellant who is the aggrieved party has again Tiled Petition No, 72 of 1993 against non- implementation of Appeal No, 51(K) of 1992. It will be realised that Director, P.T.C. Accounts is the Administrative Unit under your control to implement the judgment of the Tribunal. This office has not yet heard anything from you, Chief Engineer (S&E) and/or Director, P.T.C. Accounts, Lahore about the necessary action which was required to be taken under the law to provide relief to Mr. Asad Ali Khan. Chief Superintendent, Central Telegraph Office, Karachi.
(4) It is requested that immediate necessary action regarding fixation of pay and decision taken in this regard may be communicated to the undersigned under direct intimation to the Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi and Finance Division, Islamabad. (Underlining added)
6. (Sd.)
7. (Suhail Safdar), Director-General."
8. ' Upon a plain reading of the foregoing it would appear that by 14-10-1993 and 21-11-1993, the dates of the above two letters, the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal may not have stood implemented. However, the Tribunal, when it came to pass orders on 7-11-1993 and again on 4-1- 1994, does not seem to have been duly apprised of the factual details. An element of supression and even of misrepresentation cannot thus, be ruled out. Even so, we are of the view that the petitioner has approached a wrong forum. It was the Tribunal, where the apparent suppression or misrepresentation of facts, as reflected above, should have been disclosed. Surely, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to attend to such facts and such matters and to address relief wherever relief is warranted: See Abdul Bari v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1981 Karachi 290.
9. ' We may venture here to add that under section 5(2) of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the Tribunal has been deemed to be a Civil Court for the purpose of deciding an appeal before it and in it have been vested all the powers of such Court exercisable under the Code of Civil Procedure. One of these powers is in contemplation of section 12(2), of the Code, which makes it obligatory on a person, who challenges the validity of a judgment, decree or order on the plea of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction to seek his remedy "by making an application to the Court which passed the final judgment, decree or order " It is obvious that the petitioner preferred successive appeals/other proceedings in the Tribunal. In relation to orders therein passed fraud and/or misrepresentation is pleaded. The remedy, on the principle in section 12(2) of the Code, should lie with the Tribunal alone.
10. ' In this background, while the petition is dismissed, the petitioner is left to pursue this remedy, such as that may be, before the Tribunal.