Find a Lawyer

Criminal Original No. 29‑R of 1978 in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 218 of 1970, decided on 19th June, 1979.

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑

--Art. 204‑Contempt of superior Courts‑Petitioner's dismissal from service of respondent Mills challenged in writ jurisdiction and High Court allowing petition by an ex parte order Petitioner subsequently accepting from respondent Mills cash amount in lieu of whatever claim he had against respondents in respect of his service, or his right to be re‑instated‑Agreement executed on 15‑8‑1977 whereas petitioner filing petition for starting contempt proceedings on 25‑5‑1978‑Petition for starting contempt proceedings in circumstances, shown to have been filed mala fide and not with object of vindicating majesty of Court‑Petitioner, held, if aggrieved in respect of agreement having been got executed from him under coercion or undue influence, his remedy would lie elsewhere. [Contempt of Court].

Petitioner in person.

M. Bilal, Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 19th June 1979.

‑By this petition, filed under Article 204 of the Constitution, 1973, the petitioner wants this Court to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents, as they are alleged to have flouted the order of this Court, dated 5‑10‑1970, by which their C. P. S. L. A. No. 218 of 1970 filed against the order of the High Court, dated 30‑6‑1970 was dismissed.

The background of the case is that the petitioner, who was an employee of Fauji Textile Mills, Jhelum, was dismissed from service for misconduct, vide the order of the Management, dated 28‑3‑1960. Being aggrieved, he challenged the said order through Writ Petition No. 771/1960 filed by him in the Lahore High Court and the same was allowed by an ex parte order, dated 10‑11‑1966. After obtaining the said order in his favour, the petitioner approached the respondents and asked them to be allowed to resume his duty but they refused. And thereafter filed Miscellaneous Application No. 8361/1966 in the High Court with a view to seeking the setting aside the said ex parte order passed against him. This application was, however, dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 30‑6‑1970 with the following observations "The writ petition was decided about four years ago and from the submission made at the bar, we understand that the order issued by this Court has not been complied with. If this fact had been brought to our notice earlier, we would have certainly taken some action to see that our order is implemented."

The record would show that the respondents, in order

to seek leave against the said order of the High Court, filed civil petition for special leave to appeal No. 218/1970 in this Court. But the same was dismissed as barred by limitation. Thereafter the petitioner again approached the respon dents and requested to be allowed to resume his duty. . But it seems that the parties entered into a compromise agreement, dated 15‑8‑1977 where under the petitioner received from the respondents the sum of Rs. 18,000 in cash and in lieu thereof gave up his entire claim against the Management. The grievance of the petitioner, however, is that the said agreement was ineffective against his rights as he had been made to execute the same under coercion and undue influence. He, therefore, maintained that notwithstanding the execution of the said agreement by him, the respondents are obliged to reinstate him in service. But they have declined to do so with the result that they must be held to have committed the contempt of this Court.

We have heard the petitioner who is present in person. In order to see the force of his contention, it would be necessary to refer to the parties' agreement, dated 15‑8‑1977 (which appears at page 19 of this petition). Now by going through the said agreement, the reproduction of the contents of which is not necessary, what we have seen is that the petitioner received from the respondents the what Rs. 18,000 in cash in consideration of his under taking that he "will not lodge any claim whatsoever against the Fauji Textile Mills in connection with his service in Fauji Textile Mills, Jhelum As far as Mr. Nazir Ahmad Jan is concerned, the matter has been settled to his entire satisfaction and he hereby categorically undertakes that there is no dispute between him and the Fauji Textile Mills, Jhelum. And all claims in connection with his service with the Mills stand nullified in view of his having accepted a total sum of Rs. 18,000 (Rupees eighteen thousand only) in full and final settlement of his claim against the Fauji Textile Mills, Jhelum. There is no dispute now. Both the parties fully understand the above and append below their signatures in acceptance of what has been stated above".

It would thus be seen that due to his own free volition, the petitioner accepted from the respondents the cash amount of Rs. 18,000 in lieu of whatever claim he had against them in respect of his service; or his right to be reinstated in service. The fact that the said agreement was executed between the parties on 15‑8‑1977 whereas the petitioner filed the present petition in this Court on 25‑5‑1978 would go a long way to show that the present petition filed by him is entirely mala fide and not with the object of vindicating the majesty of this Court. Furthermore, if he has any grievance that the said agreement has been got executed from him under coercion or under influence then his remedy would lie elsewhere and not in this Court in the contempt proceedings.

This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.