Ch. RAFIQ AHMAD SHAD vs THE PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD And Other
The petitioner, an employee of the Punjab Road Transport Board, sought contempt proceedings against the Board for failing to implement the judgment of the Punjab Services Tribunal dated 21-9-1980, which had restored his promotion to Grade-18 with consequential benefits. The Supreme Court had earlier dismissed the Board's petition for leave to appeal against the Tribunal's order. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court could entertain a contempt application for the alleged violation of a Service Tribunal's order where the Supreme Court had merely dismissed the petition for leave to appeal without issuing an independent directive or granting relief itself. The Court held that the alleged breach pertained to the order of the Punjab Services Tribunal rather than an order of the Supreme Court, rendering the contempt application before the Supreme Court incompetent. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking remedy for the non-compliance of a Tribunal's order must approach the appropriate proper forum rather than invoking the contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court when the Supreme Court has only dismissed a petition for leave to appeal.
- Whether the Supreme Court can entertain a contempt application for the violation of a Punjab Services Tribunal order when the Supreme Court merely dismissed the petition for leave to appeal?
- Is a contempt application maintainable before the Supreme Court for non-compliance of an order passed by a subordinate tribunal?
- What is the proper forum for executing or seeking compliance with an order of the Punjab Services Tribunal?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--The petitioner was an employee of the Punjab Road Transport Board. He was promoted to the post of Controller of Stores in Grade-18, by the Chairman of the said Board on 12-1-1977. This order was, however, set aside by the Punjab Road Transport Board on the ground that the Chairman did not have the power to pass the above-noted order. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Board before the Punjab Services Tribunal which set aside the order of the Board upholding the order of the Chairman vide its judgment, dated 21-9-1980. The concluding paragraph whereof reads as follows:-- "Consequently the appeal succeeds and the order, dated 31-1-1977 is set aside and the order, dated 12-1-1977, is restored with all the consequential benefits."
The Board challenged this order through a petition for leave to appeal (No. 1503 of 1980), which was dismissed by this Court. Subsequently the petitioner moved a contempt application (No. 12 of 1982) alleging that the petitioner had been applying but the benefits directed by the Services Tribunal to be given to him had not yet been given to him by the respondent Board.
2. It was contended on behalf of the Board that it was in the process of calculating the amount due to the petitioner. The contempt application was, therefore, dismissed as premature.
3. He has again filed the present contempt application stating that no payment has yet been made in pursuance of the order of the Punjab Services Tribunal.
4. We have considered the question and feel that this Court had merely dismissed the petition for leave to appeal filed by the Board and had not granted any relief to Ch. Rafique Ahmad Shad (present petitioner) and the breach of any direction or order, if at all, is that of the order of the Punjab Services Tribunal. It is, therefore, open to the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the proper forum.
5. This application is, consequently, dismissed as incompetent.
Cited by 1 case
- HAKIM ALI Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF 2014 SCMR 866