MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs MUHAMMAD JAN And 2 Others
Muhammad Bakhsh petitioned for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed his revision petition against the District Judge's decree. The underlying dispute concerned the entitlement to hold the deceased miner book of Fazal Ilahi. The Civil Court initially found in favor of the petitioner, but the District Judge reversed this finding and held the respondent entitled to the miner book pursuant to Rule 4 of the Salt Miner Service and Conduct Regulation, 1976. Both the Appellate and Revisional Courts noted that upon the death of the deceased miner, the petitioner was admittedly in government service and thus not properly situated to be transferred the miner book, especially when compared to respondent No.1, who was a nephew of the same degree without competing disqualifications. The Supreme Court of Pakistan found no legal error or infirmity in the impugned judgments. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' interpretation and application of the service and conduct regulations regarding the transfer of miner books upon a miner's death.
- Whether a miner book can be transferred to a nephew who was in government service at the time of the deceased miner's death?
- Does the High Court's dismissal of a revision petition warrant interference by the Supreme Court when no legal error is shown?
- How does Rule 4 of the Salt Miner Service and Conduct Regulation, 1976 govern the priority of transferring a deceased miner's book among relatives?
- Rule 4, Salt Miner Service and Conduct Regulation, 1976
1. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---Muhammad Bakhsh petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Singe Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 25-4-1993 whereby his revision petition against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge was dismissed. The finding of the Civil Court that the petitioner herein was entitled to hold the miner book of Fazal Ilahi deceased was reversed in appeal by the learned District Judge who found the respondent entitled to hold the same.
2. Rule 4 of the Salt Miner Service and Conduct Regulation, 1976 governs the transfer of the miner book. The relevant provision is reproduced below:-- "(i) ...........................................................................................................................
(ii) On the death of a Miner his book shall be given to one of the following relations in the order named provided the man is able bodied, of good character and capable of working in the mine;
(a) ...........................................................................................................................
2. (b)...........................................................................................................................
3. (c)a brother who does not possess a book of his own and who undertakes with the widow's concurrence to support the deceased miner's family; (d)..................................................................................................................
(e) ...........................................................................................................................
(f) a nephew on the condition mentioned in (c) above:'
4. There is no dispute that the petitioner and respondent No.1 are nephews of Fazal Ilahi deceased miner in the same degree. The learned Appellate and Revisional Courts held that the cause of action had arisen on the death of deceased miner Fazal Ilahi when the petitioner was admittedly in Government " service, therefore, it was not proper exercise of, jurisdiction to transfer the miner book to him ignoring respondent No.1. It was further observed that the impression gained by the trial Court that there was another miner book in the family of Muhammad Jan respondent was not correct as the admitted position was that the other miner book was owned by Muhammad Hanif a cousin of both the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity or legal error in the impugned judgments justifying interference by this Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.