KARACHI, Jan 15: The Sindh High Court asked the Karachi Electricity Supply Corporation on Wednesday to file its reply to an over 23.8-million-rupee damages suit filed by a nine-year-old boy for the loss of his right forearm and severe injuries to other limbs.

Aleem Ahmad Siddiqui submitted, through Advocate Nasir Maqsood, that while playing near his home at PMT Clayton Quarters he unwittingly and accidentally came into contact with a live, open and exposed electric pillar box/junction. The KESC was immediately informed of the electrocution but nobody from the corporation bothered to come to his rescue. Passersby took him to his house and his parents rushed him to Civil Hospital, which referred him to the National Institute of Child Health.

Aleem was later admitted to Holy Family Hospital for surgical treatment of his electrocution injuries. His right forearm was amputated. Middle and index fingers of the left hand were also severed. The debilitating injuries left him in a state of permanent disability and marred all prospects of his leading a normal life.

The boy calculated his loss at Rs23.815 million on different counts due to negligence on the part of the KESC and requested the court to direct the defendant corporation to pay him the amount as damages. The court ordered the KESC to file its reply by Feb 13.

IRO-2002 challenged: A division bench of the Sindh High Court issued on Wednesday notices to the federal government and the attorney-general for Jan 29 in a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 and the exclusion of EOBI employees from its purview.

The petition, moved by the workers of the Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution through their collective bargaining agent - the EOBI Employees Federation of Pakistan - also questions the repeal of the 1969 Industrial Relations Ordinance by the last year’s ordinance.

Appearing for the EOBI employees, Advocate Rashid A. Rizvi submitted before the bench, which consisted of Justice Mohammad Roshan Essani and Justice Anwer Zaheer Jamali, that the promulgation of the IRO-2000 was beyond the scope of authority given to the military regime by the Supreme Court in the Zafar Ali Shah case, as it had nothing to do with the regime’s declared objectives or the then chief executive’s seven-point agenda.

The insertion of Section 1 (14) (f) in the impugned IRO, the counsel submitted, was particularly reprehensible as it excluded the EOBI and its employees from the operation of labour laws. The employees’ right to collective bargaining through an elected union was guaranteed by article 17 of the Constitution and the 1969 IRO and upheld by the Sindh High Court and the Supreme Court. The superior courts declared the EOBI to be an industry and its employees were held entitled to the protection of labour laws. The new provision was mala fide inasmuch as it aimed at nullifying the superior courts’ judgments.

The petition asserted that it were only the EOBI employees who were protesting against irregularities and maladministration in the institution. The new provision sought to muffle their voice by depriving them of the protection of law available to other industrial workers.

Besides the federal government and the AG, notices were issued to the respondent labour and manpower ministry, the NIRC and the EOBI chairman.

COMMENTS SOUGHT: The Sindh High Court asked Karachi University to submit its comments on a writ petition questioning discontinuance of supplementary examinations for first and second year law students.