–CJP says high court cannot hold hearings in case until SC decides pending appeals
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday restrained bench number one of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) from hearing a plea of Workers Welfare Board (WWB) seeking constitution of a larger bench.
A three-member special bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Gulzar Ahmed heard the case.
During the course of proceedings, the chief justice said that the high court could not hold a hearing until a decision was made on the appeals pending in the apex court. The court also directed to fix all appeals pending in the SC.
The chief justice said that the high court would take decisions based on the principles laid down by the SC. Apparently, PHC’s bench number one overlooked the apex court’s rulings, he added.
The attorney general said that appeals were pending in the SC against the high court’s decisions.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan said that the high court was authorised to announce decisions keeping in view the recent decisions of the SC under Article 189 of the Constitution.
CJP Gulzar said that the court had also issued notice to the PHC registrar at the previous hearing.
He said that the registrar had submitted an unsatisfactory response. He added that the court was not satisfied with the reply of the PHC registrar.
He also said that when such arguments were made before the apex court regarding the high court, it was necessary to review them.
He further said that the counsel for WWB had alleged that the PHC chief justice was not following the precedent set by the SC. Disregarding the apex court’s decisions was not a good thing and the SC does not want to make any observations, he added.
PHC Registrar Khawaja Wajihuddin submitted a three-page concise statement, wherein it was stated that in view of Article 189 of the Constitution, the PHC was following the SC’s latest judgment on the matter and the high court had no cavil if the apex court ordered fixing another bench of the high court or a larger bench to hear the matter.
“The apex court, in its 2016 judgment, held that the rules of board are statutory in nature therefore writ petitions under Article 199 are maintainable,” the statement read.
“After this judgment, there is not even a single judgment wherein this judgment has been overruled. Indeed, there are 2/3 judgments of the apex court wherein without discussing this aspect of case, had held that contractual employees of statutory body even cannot ask for regularisation or reinstatement after the termination of contractual obligations,” the statement added.
The statement further read that the SC had ruled that the right to regularisation of the services of employees was held maintainable before the high court.
“Larger benches are constituted when there is difference of opinion on any question of law between two benches of that court. The latest SC judgment on same subject is binding in view of Article 189 of the Constitution,” it added.
The PHC registrar contended that the counsel for the petitioner had misguided the SC that there were different judgments on the point of regularisation and termination of contractual obligations of WWB employees, adding that the case was entirely different in nature.
Regarding the claim that there had been consistent violation of Article 189 of the Constitution especially by PHC bench number one headed by the high court’s chief justice, the registrar submitted that Justice Seth in his February 17 order had made it very clear that the decision to turn down the request to form a larger bench was made in view of the latest SC judgment.
“However, the main judgment in the matter before PHC is yet to be delivered in view of Article 189 of the Constitution,” the statement read.
“Having laid down our earnest submissions, this court will stop at nothing to honor and implement every judgment and order of the apex court and have no cojals and cavil, if the apex court fixes the matter for decision before any other bench of the PHC or for that matter even before the larger bench,” it added.
Later, hearing of the case was adjourned till date in office.
