Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2024 SHC 580
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Year of Decision: 2024
Decision Date: 2024-05-21
Parties: Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Bhayo vs Federation of Sindh & others
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court on 2024-05-21, officially reported as 2024 SHC 580. In this matter between Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Bhayo and Federation of Sindh & others, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
Case cited as 2024SHC580
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, Muhammad Abdur Rahman Title: Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Bhayo vs Federation of Sindh & others Case No.: Constitution Petition No. D-132 of 2023 Date of Judgment:2024-05-21 Reported As: 2024 SHC 580 Result: Petition Disposed of
Judgment ORDER Adnan-ul-Karim M em on J:- Petitioner Mujeeb Ur Rehman is asking for the writ of certiorari under Article 199(1)(a)(i) of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,1973 against the decision dated 10-01-2023 passed by learned single Member Bench of National Industrial Relation Commission. The petitioner also seeks direction to respondent No. 5 Chief Executive Officer Sukkur Electric Power Company (SEPCO) for decision on his representation against his termination from service as Line Superintendent-II (BPS-11). He also seeks reinstatement in service in terms of prayer clause A to E. 2. We have noticed that the petitioner has not preferred Appeal against the decision dated 10-01- 2023 passed by the learned Single Bench of NIRC and has directly approached this Court on 26-01- 2023, inter-alia on the ground that his father retired from service of the Respondent SEPCO on 26.01.2006 as LS-II; that his father submitted application to the Management of Respondent Establishment on 21.03.2006 that his son (the Petitioner) may be appointed under employees quota. Simultaneously the Petitioner submitted applications / complaints before Wafaqi Mohtasib on 30.03.2007, 12.04.2007 and 12.06.2007, Wafaqi Mohtasib vide order dated 31.07.2008 closed these applications on undertaking of the Respondent that they would resolve the grievance of the Petitioner as early as possible. However, the Petitioner was not appointed under son quota as depicted in the policy of SEPCO, therefore, he approached this Court by filing Constitutional Petition No.D-758/2011 for implementation of order of Wafaqi Mohtasib. This Court vide order dated 13.11.2013 directed the Respondents to comply with the order dated 31.07.2008 passed by Wafaqi Mohtasib in letter and spirit. Consequently, the Petitioner was appointed on 13.02.2014 as LS-II on daily wages basis for 89 days. His period of Daily Wages was extended from time to time till 14.08.2016. Last
---
## Page 2
extension was granted vide order dated 06.10.2016 w.e.f 15.08.2016 to 11.11.2016. However, this extension order was cancelled vide order dated 28.10.2016 without assigning reasons as he applied on son quota and not on daily wages. 3. At this stage we asked the learned counsel whether petitioner challenged the order of cancellation of extension in daily wage period before any forum, he replied that the Petitioner filed a contempt application in CP No.D-758/2011 for compliance of order dated 13.11.2013 whereby the Respondents were directed to implement the order of Wafaqi Mohtasib regarding appointment of Petitioner against son quota and this court dismissed the contempt application vide order dated 26.11.2020 on the ground that order of this Court dated 13.11.2013 had already been implemented. He added that the Petitioner also approached the NIRC on 06.04.2022 after dismissal of his contempt application by this Court. The Petitioner stated that he had filed Review Petition before this Court which was also dismissed in August, 2021, even then the Petitioner failed to approach the Full Bench of NIRC within limitation period after dismissal of his Review petition by this Court. It appears from the record petitioner prayed for appointment as LS-II against 20% employees quota, however, he has not challenged termination order; therefore, this Court is left with no option but to observe that the instant petition is not maintainable, under Article 199 of the Constitution against the order passed by the single Bench of NIRC as the petitioner has remedy to challenge the order of single Bench of NIRC before Full Bench of NIRC under the law, let the petitioner avail his remedy first, in the intervening period, if any representation of the petitioner is pending before the respondent-SEPCO, same shall be decided within two weeks positively after providing hearing to the petitioner. 4. This petition is disposed of accordingly.