KHURSHID AHMAD and another vs LABOUR COURT and others
The petitioners, formerly employees of Attock Refinery, were dismissed from service for misappropriation of company property. Their challenges before the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal were unsuccessful. They subsequently invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, but their constitutional petitions were dismissed in limine due to the non-appearance of their counsel on the date of hearing. A subsequent application filed under section 151 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 and section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for rehearing was also dismissed. The petitioners then sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arguing that the High Court relied on distinguishable case law and that a difference of judicial opinion existed regarding the question of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court found that a substantial question of law of public importance was involved and accordingly granted leave to appeal in both petitions.
- Whether a constitutional petition can be dismissed in limine solely due to the non-appearance of the petitioner's counsel?
- Whether an application under section 151 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 and section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable for the rehearing of a dismissed constitutional petition?
- Does a difference of opinion on a question of jurisdiction warrant an authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court?
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XLVII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 114, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Khurshid Ahmad and Khuda Bakhsh have filed two separate petitions for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench.
2. ' The former was working as Clerk in Attock Refinery and the latter as Pump-man.
3. ' Both were dismissed from service having been found to be guilty of misappropriation of the company's property.
4. ' They challenged their dismissal before the Labour Court but did not succeed. Their appeal also failed.
5. ' Then they resorted to the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court. Their petitions were dismissed in limine on 29-9-1987 because the counsel for the petitioners failed to appear on the date fixed for hearing.
6. ' The Judge declined the request of the petitioners for adjournment and after discussing the case- law dismissed the petitions in limine.
7. ' Thereafter the petitioners filed application under section 151 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 and section 114, C.P.C. Requesting for re-hearing of the petitions so that the counsel could argue. This request was declined on 14-10-87.
8. ' Learned counsel argued, inter alia, that the cases referred to in the impugned order by the learned Judge are distinguishable. On the other hand there are decisions of this Court in favour of the petitioners regarding the question of jurisdiction but there is a difference of opinion.
9. ' Learned counsel submitted hence the matter calls for authoritative pronouncement by this Court.
10. Substantial question of law of public importance is involved in these Ipetitions. Leave is accordingly granted in both the petitions.
11. ' Security Rs,2,500 each.
12. ' Appeals to be made ready on the present record. The parties if they so wish may file additional documents within two months.