November 07, 2008	Friday	Ziqa'ad 8, 1429

KARACHI, Nov 6: The Supreme Court gave the federal government and other respondents a last opportunity on Thursday to contest appeals against a Sindh High Court order dismissing 94 petitions involving confinement of bonded farm workers in several districts of the province.

The appeals were moved in 2002 by two petitioners Dongar Bheel and Kanji Bheel and the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. Advocate Iqbal Haider, who successfully piloted the Bonded Labour System Abolition Act, 1992, as a senator, represented the appellants in all three cases. The cases were ordered to be adjudicated at the SC’s Karachi Registry but could not be heard due to one reason or another, generally the absence of respondents, including landlords who employed bonded labour.

The petitions moved by Dongar, who alleged that 18 of his family members were held in bondage, Kanji, who had 12 relatives held as bonded workers, and other 92 cases pertaining to forced labour at farms situated in the Hyderabad, Thatta, Sanghar, Badin, Tharparkar and other districts of the province, were dismissed by an division bench at Hyderabad in January 2002. The HRCP, which joined in the proceedings as a respondent subsequently, argued that besides being repugnant to the constitutional provisions pertaining to illegal confinement, dignity of human person and abolition of slavery, the practice of keeping bonded labour violated the provisions of the 1992 Act.

The Bonded Labour System Abolition Act was adopted following an International Labour Organization warning that Pakistan would be censured if the practice continued. Earlier in 1990, the Supreme Court had outlawed bonded labour as a form of slavery in the Punjab kiln workers’ case. The kiln owners argument that bonded workers were indebted to them as they had received or accepted lump sum payment of their wages in advance was rejected by the Supreme Court. The SHC division bench, however, did not take into consideration the provisions of the 1992 Act while dismissing the 94 petitions in 2002 and this constituted one of the main grounds of attack against the impugned judgment in the Supreme Court.

As the appeals came up before an SC bench comprising Justice Mian Hamid Farooq, Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, no federal attorney was present. Advocate-General M. Yusuf Leghari informed the bench that he would depute a provincial law officer to present the provincial government’s viewpoint as had been appearing in the proceedings that sired the impugned judgment. The provincial administration and police also went unrepresented. The bench adjourned the hearing to Nov 18 with a final warning to the respondents.

PEC official restrained

A division bench of the Sindh High Court, meanwhile, reinstated Engineer Samiullah Mughal as assistant registrar of the Pakistan Engineering Council with effect from the date of his dismissal on July 5, 2007, ‘with full benefits’.

The petitioner’s counsel, M. Nawaz Shaikh, argued before the bench, which consisted of Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Justice Khalid Ali Z. Qazi, that he was removed from service arbitrarily and out of spite.

The petitioner, the counsel claimed, had seven years of service to his credit when he was dismissed for allegedly remaining on unsanctioned leave for two days. He was not served any show-cause notice nor given an opportunity to explain his position. A higher PEC official bore him a personal grudge because he exposed his wrongdoings.

Pathologist’s plea

The bench also issued notices to the Sindh Public Service Commission and other respondents in a petition by Prof Ghulam Murtaza Pathan, a candidate for the post of pathology professor in Ghulam Mohammad Khan Mehar Medical College, Sukkur.

The petitioner submitted through Advocate Mansoorul Haq Solangi that he applied for one of two posts of professor of pathology advertised by the SPSC in January 2008. For reasons not known to him, the posts were re-advertised in September. The subsequent advertisement advised those who had applied earlier not to apply afresh. Soon afterwards, two candidates less qualified than him were recommended by the commission. The petitioner challenged some of the certificates submitted by the candidates and also alleged that they had fewer publications to their credit.

Bail in Bhutto plot case

The CJ rejected a revenue official’s plea for pre-arrest bail and allowed him seven days’ protective bail instead to enable him to surrender before the court trying a case involving illegal occupation and sale of a plot owned by the late prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Applicant Mushtaq Solangi, a mukhtiarkar of Model Colony, Malir, had issued a no-objection certificate to facilitate the sale of 500-square-yard plot by the bogus owner, Chaudhry Mohammad Boota. Boota’s own post-arrest bail application is due for hearing on Nov 11.The plot was occupied unbeknown to the late premier’s legal heirs immediately after his execution in 1979. The encroacher executed a power of attorney and got it registered in complicity with revenue and registration officials. The case was unearthed by the anti-corruption establishment. The bail plea was contested by Assistant Advocate-General Adnan Karim Memon on behalf of the state.

Surety from ‘suspects’

The division bench headed by the CJ allowed adjournment of the hearing of a petition against the big increase in the amount of surety required to be furnished by suspects placed in Schedule IV of the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Advocate Syed Abdul Waheed submitted on behalf of petitioner Affan Leghari that the official respondents, including the home secretary and the SHO of the Sachal police station, in the remit of which Leghari resides, had stated that he was required to furnish enhanced surety and that his name was included in the impugned schedule. However, they have failed to disclose why he was still regarded a ‘suspect’.

The lawyer said petitioner Leghari remained in unlawful confinement for two years since 2006 and was released only on orders of the Sindh and Balochistan high courts. No charge could be brought against him despite the prolonged detention and he had to be released. There was no reason why he should continue to be treated as a suspect and required to report his movements to the police at regular intervals and furnish a hefty surety. He sought time to file a rejoinder to the comments submitted by the respondents and the bench adjourned further hearing to Nov 18.