KARACHI: SC asks high court to rehear can firm’s case
By Our Staff Reporter
KARACHI, Nov 25: The Supreme Court remanded cross appeals in a can company case to the Sindh High Court for rehearing in the light of fresh material that had come on record.
The can company retrenched its work force of about 381 labourers on the pretext that it was shutting down its can manufacturing unit. The unit, it said, was suffering huge losses because the market for its products was shrinking fast due to the increasing popularity of plastic cans.
The workers approached a labour court, which ordered payment of compensation to the retrenched workers as required by the law.
Meanwhile, a labour department inspection following a complaint made by the aggrieved workers to the labour minister revealed that the unit reopened a fortnight after the retrenchment and a number of new employees were working there.
The labour court decision was challenged by the owners of the can company in the Sindh High Court. The court decided the matter on a technical ground as the sacked workers were unable to produce the impugned letter. The workers moved the Supreme Court for leave to impeach the SHC order.
As the leave plea came up before an SC bench comprising Chief Justice Muhammad Iftikhar Chaudhry and Justice M. Javed Buttar, the respondent company’s counsel was told that the impugned letter which could not be produced in the high court had been brought on record. The company made a misstatement by denying the existence of the letter.
The bench asked the high court to rehear the case together with another appeal moved by the company in the light of fresh material.
PLEA DENIED: The bench refused leave to appeal against an SHC decision dismissing a petition by a PIA employee for a DNA test to decide the dispute over his putative son’s paternity.
Petitioner Saleem Akhtar, a PIA driver, said his wife moved a suit for dissolution of her marriage with him to marry an officer. She later sued for maintenance of their two putative children.
He said he had only one daughter from his wife and the son was born out of wedlock. He approached the high court for a DNA test to conclusively determine the question of paternity but his petition was dismissed because he failed to question the paternity of his child before dissolution of marriage.
The SC bench comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Justice M. Javed Buttar pointed out that the petitioner lived with his wife and child for three years under the same roof after his birth without ever disowning his son. He could not be allowed to turn around after dissolution of marriage and deny paternity.
The bench asked the petitioner’s counsel to apprise him of the consequences of a positive DNA test. If the test proved his paternity, he could be charged and punished for ‘qazf’. The denial of paternity involved a charge of adultery.
HAJANO CASE: The bench sought the entire record pertaining to a former education official, Gul Mohammad Hajano.
The appellant was transferred as EDO of the city district government and while his plea against his transfer was still pending, another official was appointed in his place. He retired in the meanwhile and the high court could not provide him any relief.
Contesting the leave petition, Advocate-General Anwar Mansoor Khan submitted that the appellant had a voluminous record of litigation but since he had finally retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation, he had no cause of action. It was not for him to select his successor or question his qualifications. A presumption of regularity was attached to all official acts and decisions, he argued.
The bench desired to see the record, which the city government officials were unable to produce. Certain documents which could be read with difficulty were brought on record. The bench warned the officials concerned for their laxity and the AG assured it that suitable action would be taken against the delinquent officials. Further hearing was adjourned to a date in office.
