KARACHI, Aug 30: The Karachi University has been put on notice for Sept 27 by the Sindh High Court in a suit for the recovery of Rs7.2 million compensation in a fatal accident case.

Plaintiffs Shamrez Khan and Bibi Sughra, represented by Nasir Maqsood, are parents of the deceased Jamshed Khan, 22, who died on Aug 1, 2001, after sustaining fatal injuries in a traffic accident on July 28, 2001, within the university premises.

The plaintiffs claimed that Jamshed Khan died due to negligence of Abdur Razzaque, driver, and Abdul Samad, conductor, of the point bus.

Due to their non-accessibility to the vital part of the evidence reflecting the facts governing the said incident, the plaintiff No. 1 through his counsel, served a legal notice on July 6, asking the university functionaries to provide details of the incident, including names of insurance company and other officials involved in the accident, copy of the inquiry report prepared by the special inquiry committee formed on July 31, 2001, to investigate the cause of the accident.

The plaintiffs maintain that they were never ever called to associate with the said enquiry proceedings in any manner. It is also their case that the defendant did not take any departmental action against any of those responsible for the incident.

The plaintiffs maintain that on July 28, 2001, at 1:45 pm, the defendant No. 2, while driving the overcrowded bus in a rash, negligent and careless manner within the university premises attempted to recklessly overtake another bus and in that process the deceased and some other non-teaching employees were squeezed and pressed and thrown out of the bus, receiving serious traumatic injuries.

The plaintiffs’ son Jamshed Khan succumbed to fatal injuries and died in the hospital on Aug 1, 2001.

The incident had evoked protest and the university was closed for two days.

It is the case of the plaintiff that respondents were bound under law to pay for its fault and for the irresponsible manner in which they have acted.

The plaintiffs claim a sum of Rs72,42,000.00 against the defendants who are liable to pay the said amount to the plaintiffs jointly and severally and as such the amount claimed is reasonable and just in consonance with the principles laid down by the superior court for claiming compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.

It is the prayer of the plaintiffs that a decree in the sum of Rs.72,42,000.00 be awarded against the defendants jointly and severally as damages/compensation to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff also prayed for profit/mark-up at the rate of 21 per cent per annum on the amount claimed in Clause (a) above from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of realization of the decretal amount which the plaintiff.

Larger bench: Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed has proposed constitution of a larger bench to decide the controversy over cancellation of NIRC order by a division bench, headed by Chief Justice of the Sindh High Court and ordered that interim order would remain in operation.

The matter pertained to retrenchment of PC workers and the stay order they had obtained from the NIRC. The management of the PC had obtained a division bench order against the NIRC ruling, hence the controversy.

After hearing the matter, the bench, headed by Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed, held that it was difficult to share the views of earlier bench and proposed that a larger bench be constituted to resolve the controversy. The matter may be placed before the chief justice for this purpose.

The interim order in face will continue till further order is passed.

After hearing the parties, Justice Sabihuddin held that:

(a) A labour court has no jurisdiction to pass the kind of order envisaged under section 22-A(q) of the IRO, read with regulation 32 of the NIRC regulations in any case except when a matter has been referred to it by the commission under Section 22-A(10) of the Ordinance:

(b) That Section 22-A(12) only purports to protect the pre- existing jurisdiction of labour courts which is only confined to trial of offences of unfair labour practices and they could entertain cases for that purpose only. The aforesaid provision did not confer any new jurisdiction upon the labour courts.

(c) That Section 22-A(B) does not restrict the jurisdiction of the commission under clause (f) and (q) only to industry-wise trade union etc., except when it has been expressly ordained i.e. in respect of trial of offences under the provisions of the IRO not relating to commission of unfair labour practices.