FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs MESSRS RASHID TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS
This petition arises from the dismissal of an employee, Faqir Muhammad, from Rashid Textile Mills Limited following allegations of willful property damage. After an inquiry, the petitioner was dismissed, and his subsequent challenge under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was rejected by the Labour Court. The Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed his appeal in limine, finding that the petitioner's claim—that he was not supplied with the inquiry report and connected documents—was factually incorrect and contradicted by the record. The Sind High Court upheld this finding and further noted that the writ petition suffered from laches, having been filed over a year after the impugned order. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner failed to raise any question of law, relying solely on the same factual assertions previously rejected by the lower forums. The Supreme Court held that since no question of law was presented for consideration, there were no grounds to grant leave to appeal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the finality of the concurrent findings of fact made by the lower courts.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts and tribunals?
- Does the failure to raise a question of law preclude the grant of leave to appeal?
- Can a writ petition be dismissed on the ground of laches if filed after a significant delay?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
ORDER
' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-Faqir Muhammad, petitioner, was employed as Helping Weaver in the Rashid Textile Mills Limited, Karachi. There was an allegation, against him of wilfully damaging certain property of the said Mills. He was, therefore, served with a charge sheet dated 24th October, 1975 and, after an inquiry, he was dismissed from the service. He challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court through an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance but the same was dismissed on 16th October 1976. He then filed an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal but that was also dismissed in limine, vide Order dated 14th March 1977. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner challenged the Order of the Appellate Tribunal through Writ Petition (No, 774/1978) in the Sind High Court, but that too was dismissed vide impugned Order dated 23rd May, 1978. Hence the present petition.
2. On the last date of hearing, i.e, on 28th January, 1979 no one turned up when the case was called out for hearing and the petition was, therefore, dismissed for default. It has, however, now been restored and is being disposed of on merits.
3. We noticed that the only point urged by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal as well as the High Court was one of fact namely that a copy of the Inquiry Report and other connected papers were not supplied to him at the time of inquiry. The learned Appellate Tribunal held that the assertion was not correct and that it was patently manifest from the record that copies of the said documents were duly supplied to the petitioner. The learned High Court Judges did not feel inclined to interfere with this findings of fact. Their Lordships also felt that the writ petition merited dismissal on the ground of laches, as it had been filed after more than a year of passing of the impugned order.
' No question of law whatsoever has been raised before us. There is, therefore, no ground for the grant of leave. The petition is, consequently, dismissed.