MARTIN DOW MARKER LTD., QUETTA vs ASADULLAH KHAN Sched — 2021 PLC 67 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MARTIN DOW MARKER LTD., QUETTA VS ASADULLAH KHAN Sched., S.O. 15---Employees reinstated in service refusing to report for employer's duty---Lack of bona fides of employees in pursuing their grievance before the courts---After having succeeded in the three forums below, the respondents (employees) were issued respective letter of reinstatement in service by their employer (appellant)---Respondents admitted to the presence of the reinstatement letters and also admitted not joining duty in pursuance of the same---In such circumstances very bona fides of the respondents in pursuing their remedies before the Courts of law seeking their reinstatement in service, became doubtful, in that, the contention of the employer that the respondents were pursuing their cases only for obtaining monetary benefits and had no intention, desire or will, to work as workmen in the establishment of the employer, seemed convincing---Furthermore the respondents had not sent any written communication to the employer in response to their letters of reinstatement, meaning thereby that they had not objected to the said letters---Non-objection to the letter of reinstatement and also non-reporting for duty reflected gravely on the part of the respondents---Respondents remained absent from duty for more than one year and nine months and gave no reason whatsoever for not complying with their letters of reinstatement in service, except an oral assertion that they were offered reinstatement as workmen and not as officers---Such assertion was self-contradictory, for that, they had themselves approached the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal claiming to be workmen, and now it was altogether unbecoming on their part to claim their reinstatement as officers---Respondents themselves abandoned the relief they had obtained from the forums below---When the respondents were content with their current situation, and were not willing and prepared to work in the establishment of the employer, and they were not going to get any monetary back benefits pursuant to the impugned judgment of the High Court, the only conclusion which could be arrived at was to set-aside their reinstatement in service---Appeals filed by the employer were allowed and impugned judgment passed by the High Court allowing the reinstatement in service of the respondents was set aside. Citation Name: 2021 PLC 67 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MARTIN DOW MARKER LTD., QUETTA VS ASADULLAH KHAN arts. 185 & 199---appeal before the Supreme Court---Concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts, also upheld by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction---For displacing such concurrent finding of fact, the appellant (before the Supreme Court) was required to show and establish misreading of evidence and wrongful exercise of jurisdiction by the forums below. Citation Name: 2021 PLC 67 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MARTIN DOW MARKER LTD., QUETTA VS ASADULLAH KHAN art. 187(1)---Power of Supreme Court to issue such directions, orders or decrees, as may be necessary for doing complete justice---Scope---In doing complete justice the Supreme Court was also empowered to look at the changed circumstances of the case as they had appeared before it and also to mould relief as was just and proper for meeting the ends of justice--- In exercising the jurisdiction to do complete justice and to issue directions, orders or decrees, as may be necessary, the Supreme Court was not bound by any procedural technicality when a glaring fact was very much established on the record.

MARTIN DOW MARKER LTD., QUETTA vs ASADULLAH KHAN Sched — 2021 PLC 67 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 PLC