Messrs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES KARACHI vs INAYAT RASOOL

ORDER

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--- This petition under Article 188 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been filed seeking review of judgment, dated 27-5-2002, passed by this Court in Civil Petition No,371-K of 2001. The learned counsel has submitted that the observation made by this Court at page 13 of the judgment relating to the pivotal question involved in the case was against the record. The observation in question is reproduced hereunder:-- "It is noticeable that the petitioners in the above referred review petitions pleaded that Inayat Rasool (the present respondent) and two others namely, Ghulam and Akbar were rightly given the benefit of previous service on re-employment and that the case of respondents in review petitions being distinguishable, they could not be dealt with in the same manner as they would not stand at par to Inayat Rasool (the respondent in the present petition) and two others".

2. It is argued that this observation was made in the light of viewtaken by this Court in paras. 5, 6 and 7 of judgment in Civil 'Review Petitions Nos.7-K to 13-K of 2000 wherein the case of the respondent in present petition was discussed with reference to the" distinguishable features of the case of petitioner in the said petition, therefore, the view taken by this Court in the judgment under review was in contravention to the judgment passed in Civil Review Petitions No,7-K to 13-K of 2000 on the same subject.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. In reply, the respondent while appearing in person, has also addressed the Court. We having considered the contention raised by the learned counsel in the light of judgment under review and the judgment in Civil Review Petitions Nos.7 to 13-K of 2000, have found that same was dealt with in detail at pages 11 to 14 of the judgment. The learned counsel instead of bringing to our notice any error on the face of record for review of the judgment, made an attempt to re-open the merits of the case with reference to the judgment in Civil Review Petitions Nos.7-K to 13-K of 2000 by controverting the factual position explained therein.

The ground being pressed for the review of the judgment would amount to negate the factual position placed before the Court in the earlier case vis-a-vis the case of respondent. The scope of the review is limited and always confined to the essential aspects of the case referred to at review stage which were not considered in the judgment but if the grounds taken in support of the petition were considered in the judgment and decided on merits, the same would not be available for review in the form of re-examination of the case on merits. The grounds urged by the learned counsel in support of this review petition, have already been discussed and decided on merits, therefore, the same would not be allowed to be re-agitated.

4. This review petition having no substance, is accordingly, dismissed.