2004 PLP 137 (PLC)

AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.

Through this common judgment we intend to dispose of above Constitution petitions wherein the petitioners have impugned the judgments dated 19-6-2003 and dated 15-11-2002 of the VII Extra Joint Civil Judge and FCM, Hyderabad, (Respondent No.2) whereby he has directed the petitioners to vacate the premises provided to them by the respondent No. 1, complainant as their employer, within three months from the date of judgment failing which the S.H.O. Tando Jam was directed to eject the petitioners from the premises in their possession in accordance with law.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the above petitions as it appears from the petitions are that the respondent No.1 has filed complaints against the petitioners before the respondent No.2 pleading therein that petitioners were the employees of the Management of respondent No.1 and were provided accommodation of quarters of different types in the colony of the respondent No.1. Petitioners' services were terminated by the respondent No.1 on 21-2-1994. Under the terms of the employment the petitioners were required to vacate the premises within two months from the date of termination of their services. Since the petitioners after their termination failed to vacate the premises, complaints were filed. The petitioners appear to have disputed the ownership of the premises in their possession and the matter went up to this Court. This Court while disposing of Constitution Petition No.D-454 of 2002 filed by the petitioners had directed the respondent No.2 to hear the petitioners and dispose of the complaints by passing fresh order. These petitions are outcome of the orders passed afresh by the respondent No.2 after hearing the parties.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the judgment impugned is bad in law as it has been passed without appreciating the evidence on record. The complaints were not filed by the competent person. The services of the petitioners were not terminated validly by the respondent No. 1. and the impugned judgment is violative of the provisions of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. It has also been urged that the petitioners' claim of premises is sub judice before the Civil Court.

4. We have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record. The judgment impugned in these proceedings is a detailed judgment. This Court in exercise of Constitution jurisdiction cannot appreciate evidence led before the respondent No.

2. The status of the petitioners has been determined by the respondent No.2 which is supported by the material produced before the said forum. The questions urged in these proceedings are that of fact and have already been answered by the Court below in its judgment impugned in these proceedings. In the Constitution jurisdiction even if another view is possible this Court would not substitute such view. The provisions of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, have no application as far as the present dispute is concerned. The applicability of the provisions of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing C Orders) Ordinance, 1968, would extend only if the petitioners were employed whereas in the present case admittedly the petitioners are not employees of respondent No.

1. That law does not come to the rescue of those persons who approach the Court of law with unclean hands. We in exercise of Constitution jurisdiction would not permit a party to continue possession of a premises which it has acquired under some arrangement and subject to the terms of such arrangement it was required to vacate. The petitioners acquired possession of the premises on their appointment as employees are bound to vacate it on termination of their services. No material is placed on record to show that the issues in the civil proceedings initiated by the petitioners were common to the issues raised in these proceedings. Under these circumstances, we find the impugned judgment is in accordance with law and there is no inherent defect which warrants interference by us in the Constitution jurisdiction.

5. For the aforesaid reasons we have dismissed these petitions alongwith the listed-applications in limine on 21-8-2003 by our short order. S.A.K./A-10/K Petitions dismissed.