1983 PLP 243 (PLC)
MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MULTAN AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1983 PLP 243 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | K. M. A. Samdani, J. |
| Parties | MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MULTAN AND ANOTHER |
| Primary Law | Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 243 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 243 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: K. M. A. Samdani, J..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 243 (PLC) (MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MULTAN AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aftab Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 1.
- Salim Baig for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing : 26th October 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 7 (3)‑Offences under Act‑‑ Jurisdiction to be exercised on complaint‑Authority of Deputy Commissioner to file complaint challenged before High Court in writ petition‑Question of competence, held, to be raised before and adjudicated upon by trial Court‑Decision on such issue by High Court, held, would amount to pre‑empt decision of trial Court‑Writ petition dismissed as premature‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.
Judgment & Decree
Respondent No. 2 is an employee of the petitioner. He applied to the Deputy Commissioner requesting him to file a complaint against his employer, the petitioner, for an alleged violation of the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The learned Deputy Commissioner thought it fit to issue notice to the petitioner before filing the complaint in a criminal Court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioner objected to the authority of the Deputy Commissioner to file such a complaint but the learned Deputy Commissioner decided that he had the requisite authority. Hence this writ petition wherein the authority of the Deputy Commissioner is under challenge.
2. The respondent's counsel relies on a notification issued by the Federal Government in 1976 in support of his contention that the Deputy Commissioners have been authorised within their respective jurisdictions to make complaints in respect of the offences under the said Act. Besides, he also asserts that the petition is premature inasmuch as the Deputy Commissioner has not so far decided whether a complaint should be made at all against the petitioner.
3. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. In case the complaint is made by the Deputy Commissioner, it will be open to the petitioner to contend before the trial Court that the complaint is not competent if he can show that the Deputy Commis sioner has not been duly authorised. This question has a direct bearing on the question of the Court's jurisdiction as, according to subsection (3) of section 7 of the Act, "no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act except upon complaint in writing made by a servant of any Government in Pakistan authorised in this behalf by the Federal Government". Therefore, in the first place, it will be for the trial Court to adjudicate upon the question of the competence of the complaint if any, made to it. A decision by this Court at this stage would amount to pre‑empting the decision of the trial Court Therefore the writ A petition is undoubtedly premature. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.