' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---This is an appeal with leave of this Court against the judgment, dated 22nd October, 1997 of the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No,319-K of 1997 filed by the appellant against order dated 5-3-1997 terminating his services on the ground of down sizing the staff in the respondent-Corporation, dismissing the same on the ground that section 2(A) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 which was incorporated by Act, No,XVII of 1997 was effective from 10- 6-1997 which will be the date of amended Act) and since the cause of section to the appellant had accrued prior to the above date, his appeal was not competent. Leave to appeal was granted to consider the question as to whether in view of pronouncement by this Court, inter alia, in the case of Adnan Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal (PLD 1969 SC 187) and Malik Gul Hasan & Co. And 5 others v. Allied Bank of Pakistan (1996 SCM R 237), view of Federal Service Tribunal was correct.
2. In support of above appeal, Mr. Raja Muhammad Bashir learned counsel for the appellant had vehemently urged that as the change of forum is procedural matter, section 2-A incorporated in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 was applicable retrospectively. In support of the above submission, he has relied upon the following cases:-
(i) Adnan Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal (PLD 1969 SC 187).
(ii) Malik Gul Hasan & Co., and 5 others v. Allied Bank of Pakistan (1996 SCM R 237).
(iii) Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Siddiq. (PLD 1981 SC 249).
(iv) The Chairman PIAC and others v. Nasim Malik (PLD 1990 SC 951).
' On the other hand, Mr. Raja Abdul Ghafoor, learned Advocate-on-Record had contended that since the preamble to the amending Act provides that the amending Act shall come into force with immediate effect and, therefore, retrospective effect cannot be given to above section 2-A of the Act. However, he has not cited any case-law contrary to what has been held, inter alia, in the case of Adnan Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal (supra). It will suffice to reproduce the relevant passage from the above judgment which was authored by Hamoodur Rahman, C.J. Which reads as follows:-- "The next question, therefore, that arises for consideration is as to what are matters of procedure. It is obvious that matters relating to the remedy, the mode of trial, the manner of taking evidence and forms of action are all matters relating to procedures, Crawford to takes the view that questions relating to jurisdiction over a cause of action, venue parties pleadings and rules of evidence also pertain to procedure, provided the burden of proof is not shifted. Thus; a statute purporting to transfer jurisdiction over certain causes of action may operate retroactively. This is what is meant by saying that a change of forum by a law is retrospective being a matter of procedure only. Nevertheless it must be pointed out that if in this process any existing rights are affected or the giving or retroactive operation cause inconvenience or injustice, then the Courts will not even in the case of a procedural statute, favour an interpretation giving retrospective effect to the statute. On the other hand, if the new procedural statute is of such a character that its retroactive applications will tend to promote justice without any consequential embarrassment or detriment to any of the parties concerned, the Courts would favourably incline towards giving effect to such procedural statutes retrospectively."
' A perusal of the abovequoted extract from the judgment clearly shows that the matter relating to the remedy, the mode of trial, the manner of taking evidence and forms of action which are all matters pertaining to procedure. Reliance has also been placed on Federation of Pakistan v.
Muhammad Siddiq (PLD 1981 SC 249) which is in line with the view taken in the above judgment.
Subject, judgments of this Court referred hereinabove are also in line with the above judgment in the case of Adnan Afzal v Sher Afzal (supra).
3. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was not justified in non-suiting the appellant as on 10-9-1997 when the appellant presented his appeal before the Service Tribunal, admittedly, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction in the matter. The question whether the appellant is entitled to any relief was a question on merits. We would, therefore, allow the above appeal with no order as to costs.