P L D 2016 Lahore 248 (PLP)
SALIM JAVED BAIG and others — Petitioners Versus FEDERAL OMBUDSMAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2016 Lahore 248 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SALIM JAVED BAIG and others — Petitioners Versus FEDERAL OMBUDSMAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act (IV of 2010) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2016 Lahore 248 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act (IV of 2010) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2016 Lahore 248 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2016 Lahore 248 (PLP) (SALIM JAVED BAIG and others — Petitioners Versus FEDERAL OMBUDSMAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Hussain Chotya for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 8 & 2(1)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Alternate remedy, availability of
Accused, an Association of Lawyers, sought rejection of complaint pending before Federal Ombudsman on ground that Federal Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter, as their office did not fall within meaning of 'organization' as defined under S. 2(1) of Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010
Accused, before filing present petition, had already filed application before Federal Ombudsman seeking the same relief, which was still pending for adjudication
Present constitutional petition was only maintainable if no other alternative remedy was available to accused
Court observed that for exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution, availability of no other remedy was condition precedent
Matter was still pending before Federal Ombudsman without any final verdict
Federal Ombudsman had only issued notice to, and called upon, accused to appear in complaint
No adverse order had thus far been passed against accused by Federal Ombudsman
In absence of any findings of Federal Ombudsman, present petition would not be maintainable
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Art.199
Constitutional petition
Alternate remedy, availability of
Constitutional petition is maintainable only if no other alternate remedy is available.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, J.
The facts of the case which need to be stated for the disposal of this petition are that respondent No.2 has filed a complaint dated 14.09.2015 before the Federal Ombudsman Islamabad while invoking The Protection Against Harassment Of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. On 17.09.2015 a notice was issued by the Federal Ombudsman Secretariat and was received by the petitioners. The petitioners being aggrieved by the assumption of jurisdiction by the Federal Ombudsman filed an application dated 12.10.2015 for rejection of the complaint on the ground that the Federal Ombudsman has no jurisdiction whatsoever to proceed in the matter. The application filed by the petitioners for rejection of the complaint in limine is pending adjudication before the Federal Ombudsman and has not been decided so far.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are practicing lawyers working under the name and style of "Salim Baig and Associates". The Federal Ombudsman could only assume jurisdiction if an offence was statedly committed in an organization which has been defined in Section 2 Subsection (L) of The Protection against Harassment Of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. A bare reading of the said provision of law would show that a Lawyer's Office would not fall within its ambit. In any case after the 18th amendment becoming part and parcel of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 The Punjab Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Amendment) Act, 2012 (III of 2013) has been promulgated meaning thereby that an aggrieved person working in the Province of Punjab may possibly have a remedy under the Act referred to above but cannot approach the Federal Ombudsman for the redressal of a grievance. Since the Federal Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter the impugned notice which has been issued is liable to be set aside.
3. The petitioners on their own saying have filed an application dated 12-10-2015 before the Federal Ombudsman seeking rejection of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 in limine. As the application seeking rejection of the complaint on the ground that the Federal Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter is pending adjudication the present writ petition would not be maintainable. It is trite law that a writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 is only maintainable if no other alternative remedy is available to the petitioner as has been held by the Apex Court in Dr. Imran Khattak and another v. Ms. Sofia Waqar Khattak, PSO to Chief Justice and others (2014 SCMR 122)., The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Adamjee Insurnce Company Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 5 others (1993 SCMR 1798) has clearly held that no other remedy being available to an aggrieved person is a condition precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. Similarly in Sheikh Rashid Ahmad v. D.M. Rawalpindi and others (PLJ 2004 Lahore 1221(FB)) a Full Bench of this Court has held where an another authority is competent to consider and grant the required relief any interference by this Court while exercising its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 would produce a sense of distrust in the authority seized of the dispute. The matter is still pending before the Federal Ombudsman and he has not given his final verdict. The Federal Ombudsman has only issued a notice and called upon the petitioners to appear in the complaint which has been filed against them. No adverse order has been passed against the petitioners till today and they have simply been called upon to appear and defend themselves in a complaint filed against them. In the absence of any finding given by the Federal Ombudsman this petition would not be maintainable. Muhammad Akhtar Sherani and 35 others v. The Punjab Textbook Board, Lahore and 4 others (2001 PLC (C.S.) 939) and Virasat Ullah v. Bashir Ahmad, Settlement Commissioner (Industries) and another (1969 SCMR 154) may be read with considerable advantage.
4. For what has been stated above, this petition without any substance stands dismissed in limine. SL/S-125/L Petition dismissed.