ADMINISTRATOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BAHAWALPUR and another vs ADMINISTRATOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BAHAWALPUR and another
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner seeking back benefits following his reinstatement. The petitioner had been reinstated by the Senior Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) on December 22, 1997, but without back benefits. Instead of challenging this order before the Full Bench of the N.I.R.C., the petitioner invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court could grant back benefits in Constitutional jurisdiction when the petitioner failed to establish that he remained unemployed during the relevant period. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal, noting that the petitioner failed to provide material evidence of his unemployment. Furthermore, the Court held that factual controversies cannot be resolved within the scope of Constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court found the petition meritless, affirmed the impugned judgment, and refused leave to appeal, reinforcing the principle that Constitutional jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for determining disputed questions of fact.
- Can a claim for back benefits involving disputed factual assertions be resolved within Constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is it necessary for a petitioner to exhaust alternative remedies, such as an appeal before the Full Bench of the N.I.R.C., before invoking Constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the failure to provide evidence of unemployment preclude a claim for back benefits?
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 9-2-2000 whereby the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dismissed the Constitution Petition, filed by the petitioner claiming back benefits.
2. We need not give the facts of the case as the same have been given in detail in the impugned judgment.
3. We have considered the contentions raised by the petitioner, who, has appeared in person in support of the petition, and have gone through the documents placed on record. We have noticed that the Senior Member, N.I.R.C., through his order, dated 22-12-1997 accepted the petition filed by the petitioner and re-instated him without back benefits. The petitioner instead of challenging order of the Senior Member N.I.R.C. Before the Full Bench, filed Constitutional Petiton which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court through the impugned judgment, dated 9-2-2000.
4. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, while dismissing the Constitutional petition has observed that the petitioner has not placed any material on record to establish his assertion that he remained un-employed and jobless till his re-instatement by the N.I.R.C. On 22-12-1997.
Even otherwise, the plea raised by the petitioner involving factual controversy cannot be resolved in the Constitutional jurisdiction. The petitioner has also failed to point opt any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment.
5. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the present petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed and leave refused.