Law:

Section:

(a) Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)  Ss. 3. 4 & 8-Words "within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal" in S. 8-Contention that since no appeal under proviso (c) to S. 4 is competent before Tribunal against order or decision made by a departmental authority "before the 1st July 1969" no appeal could be made under proviso to S. 8 and, therefore, such cases do not abate- Contention, held, not valid. It was contended that under section 8 of the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974 only those suits, appeals and applications shall abate which are "within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal" and that since no appeal under proviso (c) to section 4 is competent before "a Tribunal against an order or decision of departmental authority made at any time before the 1st of July 1969", the appeal under proviso to section 8 is not competent and, therefore, such cases do not abate. Held : If the words "within the jurisdiction in section 8 are refer able to section 4, then obviously such proceedings before the Court shall not abate. But this is not the case. The scope of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is given in section 3. Section 4 does not provide for the juris diction of the Tribunal but only for appeals in certain cases which are not covered by section 8 or 10 and in those cases the jurisdiction is restricted by virtue of proviso (c). It will be against the well-established principles of Interpretation of Statutes that scope of proviso (c) which is of section 4 should be extended to other provisions of the Act. The Legislature was conscious that aggrieved by orders affecting his terms and conditions of service a civil servant might have resorted to any of the remedies provided by law and filed a suit or an appeal or a Writ Petition. It, therefore, specifically made a provision in section 8 for their abatement. If the Legislature had intended that section 4 should apply to such cases, it would not have added a proviso to section 8. because in the event of abatement, the impugned order could be challenged under section 4, there being no provision like Order XXII, rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure barring…