| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1974 SLG 3045 = 1974 SLD 3045 = 1974 PLD 261 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Constitutional Petition No. 152/168 of 1972, decided on 7th March 1974.
Presented By: Muhammad Haleem and Ghulam Rasool K. Shaikh, JJ
Mst. Kaniz Fatima v. Chief Settlement Commissioner P L D 1969 Kar. 401 and State v. Ziaur Rahman P L D 1973 S C 62 ref. Saleem Akhtar (in W. P. 15 of 1972) and Khalilur Rehman (in W. P. 168 of 1972) for Petitioner. Advocate-General (in W. P. 152 of 1972) for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in W. P. No. 168 of 1972).
Respondent No. 5 in person (in W. P. No. 152 of 1972).
Constitutional Petition No. 152/168 of 1972, decided on 7th March 1974.
Presented By: Muhammad Haleem and Ghulam Rasool K. Shaikh, JJ
Mst. Kaniz Fatima v. Chief Settlement Commissioner P L D 1969 Kar. 401 and State v. Ziaur Rahman P L D 1973 S C 62 ref. Saleem Akhtar (in W. P. 15 of 1972) and Khalilur Rehman (in W. P. 168 of 1972) for Petitioner. Advocate-General (in W. P. 152 of 1972) for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in W. P. No. 168 of 1972).
Respondent No. 5 in person (in W. P. No. 152 of 1972).
MULLER & PHIPPS (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI---Petitioner
VERSUS
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KARACHI AND 4 OTHERS Respondents
Law: Martial Law Order, 1972
Section: 3(b), 4, 7(1)
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1972) Art. 201-Writ jurisdiction-Plea raising question of jurisdictional fact and law-Jurisdictional fact which could deprive Tribunal of his jurisdiction should be raised before him to enable him to give a finding on it-Party failing to do so cannot raise it for first time in writ jurisdiction before High Court-Award given under Martial Law Order No. 52 [Zone D] of 1972, challeng ed in High Court on ground that arbitrator had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of dispute as employee was not a "workman" Employer in his written reply before arbitrator resisting re instatement of employee on basis of his contract of service and on no other ground-Held : from mere fact that employee was described as salesman it could not be inferred that the plea that employee was not "workman" was impliedly raised before the tribunal-Martial Law Order 52 [Zone D] of 1972, paras. 4 & 3(b). (b) Martial Law Order No. 52 [Zone D] of 1972 Para.3(b)-Construction-Words "skilled, unskilled, manual or clerical"-To be read disjunctively. The words "skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical" in para. 3(b) of then Martial Law Order No. 52 illustrate the nature of the work and have to be read disjunctively. As such, it is not possible to read the words "skilled or unskilled" to mean either manual or clerical, whether comma is or is not taken into consideration while construing these words. Therefore, the nature of the duties performed would not except him from the definition of the word "workman." Chairman, Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi v. General Secretary, Union Karkunane Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Ltd., Rawalpindi P L D 1969 Lah. 717 and Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan Tobacco Employees' Union,. Dacca and others P L D 1961 S C 403 ref. (c) Martial Law Order No. 52 [Zone D] of 1972 Para. 4-Workman if he considers termination of his service as improper can move arbitrator-Contention that in terminating service of employee no law was infringed and, therefore, employee had no locus standi to move application before arbitrator-Rejected. Paragraph 4 of the Martial Law Order No. 52, as…