PESHAWAR: The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal has declared that it has the power to enforce its orders despite the removal of a relevant provision from the law by the provincial government.

Chairman of the tribunal`s bench Kaleem Arshad Khan accepted around 15 applications filed by appellants for restoration of their `execution petitions,` which were earlier adjourned sine die due to amendments to the KP Service Tribunal Act, 1974.

`The deletion of the relevant Clause d through the 2024 Amendment Act couldn`t strip this tribunal of its jurisdictionto enforce its judgements or order,` Mr Khan declared in the ruling.

He added that those petitions were maintainable.

In November last year, the government made amendments to the law through the KP Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2024, which led to the deletion of Section 7(d), which read, `A tribunal or its bench should be having the powers of execution of its decisions.

The new sub-section 7(4) was inserted into the law, declaring: `All the executions, pending before the tribunal, shall be disposed of in a manner as may be determined by Government.

Following passage of the said amendment Act the same was challenged before the Peshawar High Court, which has still been pending there.

In the meantime, all the pending execution petitions were adjourned for an indefinite period.

Several petitioners then filed restoration applications,requesting the tribunal to restore their pleas as the government had failed to provide any execution mechanism so far.

Advocate Ali Gohar Durrani appeared for the petitioners and insisted that there had been no progress in expediting the process for determining the mode and manner of disposing of the pending execution petitions as required by the newly-added sub-section.

He referred to different judgements of the superior courts arguing that the tribunal had the powers to execute its orders despite the amendments made in the law.

The tribunal in its 15-page detailed judgement referred to Article 212(2) of the Constitution, stating that the KP Service Tribunal held exclusive jurisdiction over the matters it was established to address, thereby excluding all other courts and forums from entertaining or dealing with any issue within the scope of Article 212 of the Constitution.The tribunal observed that it was a universally acknowledged principle that only the forum which rendered a judgement or order possessed the authority to implement or execute it.

`No other authority or entity can enforce or execute the order, as this falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the originating forum,` the tribunal ruled.

`In other words, the court or tribunal that issues the order retains sole authority over its implementation. This principle of exclusivity asserts that only the tribunal which issued the judgement has the inherent power to execute it.

The judgement also read that regardless of any legislative gaps or the lack of any explicit execution provision, no external authority could usurp that jurisdiction.

It added that ultimately, the responsibility for executing its own judgements remained with the originating forum, and that fundamental principle pre-vailed irrespective of any omissions in the relevant legal framework.

Referring to a last year`s Supreme Court judgement and another judgement of the Lahore High Court, the bench observed that in the light of the rulings of the superior courts,it was clear that the authority to execute or implement a judgement resided with the court, authority or tribunal that issued the order, judgement or decree regardless of whether a specific provision in the relevant law explicitly empowered such entities to execute or enforce their own judgements.

The tribunal also observed that the KP establishment department was afforded multiple opportunities to present the method or manner, if any, determined under the newly inserted provision in the KP Service Tribunal Act, enabling the tribunal to resolve the pending execution petitions, but to date no response had been provided by the department.