ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has said that high courts should ensure the implementation of their orders and not shrug off their responsibility by asking the aggrieved person to seek remedy from another forum.
In a judgement released on Friday, Justice Muhammad Ali stated that high courts should evaluate the compliance of their judgement “in its entirety” and not the ratio or percentage of compliance.
A three-judge bench, including Justice Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, issued the order on pleas filed by three employees of Zeal Pak Cement Factory against their wrongful termination in 1996.
The employees challenged the company’s decision in a Hyderabad Labour Court which reinstated them, with full benefits, in Oct 1999.
The company appealed against the order in a Labour Appellate Tribunal, and the order was set aside.
Three-judge bench sends 28-year-old case back to SHC for fresh hearing
The petitioners then went to the Sindh High Court (SHC) Circuit Court Hyderabad, which again ordered their reinstatement in March 2009.
When the orders weren’t complied with, the petitioners filed for contempt proceedings, which the SHC rejected on the grounds that “substantial compliance” with the judgement had been made. The court also dismissed the petition, saying that the employees were “at liberty to seek a remedy” from any other forum.
The bench allowed the petitioner’s plea and set aside the SHC order. The matter has been sent back to the SHC-Hyderabad for a fresh hearing to examine whether the judgement has been implemented as per the directions issued by the high court or not.
Justice Mazhar added that the matter remained pending in the SHC “for a considerable period of time without ensuring compliance”. “What substantial compliance was allegedly made should have been reflected in the order to determine whether due compliance has been achieved or not.”
High courts have to assess the contempt and its gravity, but there is no concept to dispose of the matter on the basis of “substantial compliance”.
“The high court must have ensured due compliance of its own judgement rather than instructing the petitioners to seek an appropriate remedy for compliance or implementation of the judgement.”
The judgement added that if an order is not implemented, the high court should take all necessary steps to ensure compliance “rather than divesting or repudiating its jurisdiction as vested under Article 204”.
Under the said article, a court has the to punish any person who (a) abuses, interferes with or obstructs the process of the court in any way or disobeys any order of the court; (b) scandalises the court or otherwise does anything which tends to bring the court or a judge of the court into hatred, ridicule or contempt; (c) does anything which tends to prejudice the determination of a matter pending before the court; or (d) does any other thing which, by law, constitutes contempt of the court.
The judge observed that a court should not relegate its jurisdiction by taking on powers not vested in it by law, nor should it abdicate or renounce its jurisdiction under law.
“If the judgement of High Court is not implemented in its letter and spirit, it is evident that the High Court ought to have taken all necessary steps for compliance of its judgement…”
A court should “evaluate the compliance of its judgement in its entirety and not the ratio or percentage of compliance”, the judgement said, adding that not exercising jurisdiction in contempt proceedings not only renders the judgement worthless but also undermines the writ of the court.
Published in Dawn, February 10th, 2024
SC tells lower courts to enforce their orders
13
0
10.02.2024
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has said that high courts should ensure the implementation of their orders and not shrug off their responsibility by asking the aggrieved person to seek remedy from another forum.
In a judgement released on Friday, Justice Muhammad Ali stated that high courts should evaluate the compliance of their judgement “in its entirety” and not the ratio or percentage of compliance.
A three-judge bench, including Justice Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, issued the order on pleas filed by three employees of Zeal Pak Cement Factory against their wrongful termination in 1996.
The employees challenged the company’s decision in a Hyderabad Labour Court which reinstated them, with full benefits, in Oct 1999.
The company appealed against the order in a Labour Appellate Tribunal, and the order was set aside.
Three-judge bench sends 28-year-old case back to........
© Dawn Business
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Rachel Marsden
Donald Low
Bradley Blankenship
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Abbas Juma
Michael Kwet
