Agha SALIM KHURSHID, MEMBER NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a former Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) seeking the expungement of adverse remarks made against him in a High Court judgment. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in making critical observations regarding the petitioner's judicial performance in a grievance petition, specifically concerning his procedural conduct. The petitioner had restored a dismissed grievance petition and passed a final order the following day without serving notice on the opposite party. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's observations were justified given the petitioner's haste and failure to provide an opportunity of hearing to the opposing party. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to exercise its discretion to interfere, finding no illegality in the High Court's remarks. The key principle laid down is that judicial officers are subject to scrutiny regarding their procedural conduct, and appellate courts are justified in making adverse remarks when a judicial officer acts with undue haste, violates principles of natural justice, or fails to afford parties a fair opportunity to be heard.
- Are adverse remarks made by a High Court against a judicial officer regarding procedural conduct subject to expungement if the officer acted with undue haste?
- Does a judicial officer's failure to serve notice on an opposing party before restoring a dismissed petition justify critical judicial observations?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with High Court observations that do not suffer from illegality?
- Article 185, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---Through this petition, leave to appeal is sought against the remarks made against the petitioner in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment dated 26-2-1997 passed in Writ Petition No,485 of 1997 by the Lahore High Court, seeking expungment of the same.
2. The petitioner was Member of N.I.R.C. Who decided a grievance petition through order dated 30- 12-1996 which was challenged in Writ Petition No,485 of 1997 before the High Court which was accepted through judgment, dated 26-2-1997 and the learned Judge in Chamber made impugned remarks about his performance keeping in view the manner in which the petitioner dealt with the case and passed order impugned in the writ petition.
3. We have been informed that the petitioner has ceased to be the Member of the N.I.R.C. The petition before the N.I.R.C. Which was heard by the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution on 26-11-1996. An application for its restoration was filed on 29-12-1996 which was allowed without serving notice on the opposite party i.e,, the writ petitioner and fixed the same for hearing for 30-12- 1996 on which date the order impugned in the writ petition was passed. Keeping in view this aspect of the case that the petitioner showed haste in passing the order for restoration of the petition without service of notice on the other party and proceeding to pass an order on the next day without affording opportunity to the writ petitioner, the learned Judge was justified in making the impugned observations.
4. We are not disposed in our discretion vested in the Court under Article 185 of the Constitution to interfere in the matter as the observations made by the learned Judge of the High Court in these circumstances do not suffer from any illegality, therefore, this petition is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.