' JAVED IQBAL, J.-The petition bearing No,2197 of 2001 for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30-4-2001 of learned Federal Service Tribunal whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed. In Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,614 of 2003, the judgment dated 14-5-2002 passed by learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench) has been assailed whereby the Intra-Court appeal was dismissed being barred by 51 days as well as on the point of jurisdiction holding that in view of the provisions as contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan the petitioner should have approached the learned Federal Service Tribunal for the redressal of her grievances.
2. The petitioner was represented by her father namely Mr. M. Siddique Qureshi who conceded frankly regarding the factum of absence which, according to him, was not wilful but due to compelling circumstances which made the petitioner incapacitated to perform official duties. We are not persuaded to agree with the prime contention of Mr. M. Siddique Qureshi that the termination order could not have been passed without deciding the representation of the petitioner for the reason that representation dated 2-12-1999 was disposed of by means of order dated 16-5-2000. The objection that the said order did not mention the date of representation made by the petitioner being devoid of merit hardly deserves any consideration. It is worth- mentioning here at this juncture that successive representations could not have been made and therefore, the competent authority is not bound to dispose of all such representations.
3. The determination qua the factum of wilful absence made by the department has been affirmed by the learned Service Tribunal which cannot be reversed without sufficient lawful justification which is badly lacking in this case. It is well-settled by now that this Court does not ordinarily interference with a concurrent finding of fact given by Departmental. Authority and Service Tribunal. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in cases titled Muhammad Munir Ahmad v. WAPDA 1990 SCM R 907; Munir Ahmad v. Punjab Service Tribunal 1990 SCM R 1005; Faiz Ahmad v. Deputy Postmaster General, Lahore 1991 SCM R 368; Muhammad Binyamin v. WAPDA 1991 SCM R 383.
4. Insofar as impugned judgment delivered by learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court whereby Intra-Court Appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner was rejected, has been examined which is free from any illegality or infirmity. The Intra-Court Appeal was dismissed being barred by 51 days as well as on merits by holding that in view of the provisions as contained in Article 212 of the Constitution, the Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction in service matters relating to terms and conditions of Government servants. A careful scrutiny of the provisions as enumerated in Article 212(2) of the Constitution read with section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 would lead to draw the only irresistible conclusion would be that upon the establishment of the Tribunal, no other Court has jurisdiction in the service matters covered by the Service Tribunals and jurisdiction of the High Court is also ousted with regard to all such matters which fall within the jurisdictional domain of Service Tribunal. If any authority is needed reference can be made to cases titled Pakistan International Airlines v. F.M. Shamsi PLD 1990 SC 943, The Chairman, PIAC v. Nasim Malik PLD 1990 SC 951.
5. In sequel to above mentioned discussion we are of the view that no question of law of public importance is involved in the matter persuading us to grant leave to appeal. The petitions being meritless are dismissed and leave refused.