2025 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ALTAF HUSSAIN BUTT through Constituted Attorney Versus FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman, FBR and 5 others
| Citation | 2025 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh High Court |
| Bench Members | Yousuf Ali Sayeed and Sana Akram Minhas, JJ |
| Parties | ALTAF HUSSAIN BUTT through Constituted Attorney Versus FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman, FBR and 5 others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh High Court bench comprising: Yousuf Ali Sayeed and Sana Akram Minhas, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ALTAF HUSSAIN BUTT through Constituted Attorney Versus FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman, FBR and 5 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Anwar Hussain for Petitioner
- Faisal Mehmood Ghani for Respondents Nos.4 to 6
- In addition, learned Counsel for Respondents Nos.4 to 6 has referred to a "Declaration" dated 27.3.2008 (Court File Pg. 111, Annex R-5 of Objections filed by Respondents Nos.4 to 6), whereby the Petitioner allegedly opted for a lump sum payment along with enhanced gratuity in lieu of continued membership of the Pension Fund, and also discharged the Trust and GSK Company from all further pension liabilities. The validity and enforceability of this Declaration likewise involve contested factual issues that fall outside the scope of constitutional proceedings.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.199
'Pension Fund Trust', abolition of
Constitutional petition, maintainability of
Public limited company not amenable to Constitutional jurisdiction
Factual controversies involving disputed questions
Recording of evidence, requirement of
Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, scope of
Factual controversies cannot be entertained under Constitutional jurisdiction as same require recording of evidence and recording of evidence cannot be undertaken in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction
Brief facts of the matter were that the petitioner was a former employee of a public limited company who challenged the alleged unlawful abolition and winding up of the "Pension Fund Trust" and further disputed a document claiming his signature upon it was obtained without free consent and under coercion
He sought to invalidate these documents which were allegedly obtained by the company
Held: The public limited company was incorporated under the relevant company laws and was not amenable to constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution since it did not fall within the definition of a "person" as contemplated in Art. 199(5) thereof
Furthermore, the question of whether the petitioner's signature on the document in question was obtained through coercion or without free consent involved disputed questions of facts and required recording of evidence which could not be undertaken in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution
Moreover, the validity and enforceability of the 'declaration' though which the petitioner allegedly opted for a lump sum payment and other service benefits involved contested factual issues that fell outside the scope of Constitutional proceedings
Constitutional petition failing to meet the threshold for the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SANA AKRAM MINHAS J.
The Petitioner, who ceased to be an employee of the Respondent No.4 viz. GlaxoSmithKline Pakistan Ltd. ("GSK") in the year 2010 (Court File Pg. 61, Annex H) has, inter alia, challenged the purported "abolition, dissolution, or winding up" of the "Pension Fund Trust" through a "Supplemental Trust Deed" dated 6.12.2007 (Court File Pg. 35, Annex D-1) executed by the Respondents Nos.4 to 6, alleging the same to be unlawful. He also seeks a declaration that his signature on the document dated 25.3.2008 (Court File Pg. 49, Annex F-1) - executed 10 years prior to the institution of this Petition on 24.3.2018 - and obtained by the GSK Senior Staff Pension Fund (Respondent No.5), was procured without his free consent and under coercion. It is pertinent to note that GSK is a public limited company incorporated under the relevant company laws and, as such, is not amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, since it does not fall within the definition of a "person" as contemplated in Article 199(5) thereof. Furthermore, the question of whether the Petitioner's signature on the aforesaid document dated 25.3.2008 was obtained through coercion or without free consent involves disputed questions of fact and requires recording of evidence, which cannot be undertaken in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. In addition, learned Counsel for Respondents Nos.4 to 6 has referred to a "Declaration" dated 27.3.2008 (Court File Pg. 111, Annex R-5 of Objections filed by Respondents Nos.4 to 6), whereby the Petitioner allegedly opted for a lump sum payment along with enhanced gratuity in lieu of continued membership of the Pension Fund, and also discharged the Trust and GSK Company from all further pension liabilities. The validity and enforceability of this Declaration likewise involve contested factual issues that fall outside the scope of constitutional proceedings. In view of the foregoing, the instant Petition does not meet the threshold for the exercise of writ jurisdiction and is accordingly dismissed. UN/A-42/Sindh Petition dismissed.