2016 PLP 245 (PLC)

The petitioners have called into question the validity and legality of order dated 27.06.2013 passed by learned Single Judge in Chamber whereby the writ petition of the respondent was allowed.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that respondent was appointed as Head Clerk in Multan Development Authority, Multan and vide order dated 12.10.2002 he was compulsorily retired. The respondent challenged the retirement order dated 12.10.2002 before learned Punjab Labour Court, Multan by filing grievance petition. Ultimately, the grievance petition was dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2007 passed by the Punjab Labour Court, Multan. The respondent assailed the order dated 30.05.2007 by filing appeal before learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Multan who vide judgment dated 16.11.2010 dismissed the same. The respondent assailed the aforesaid order by filing constitution petition which was allowed vide order dated 27.06.2013 passed by this Court. Through the instant review petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 27.06.2013 passed by learned Single Judge in Chamber of this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that during the hearing of writ petition the conceding statement of learned counsel for the respondents was not made at the instructions of an officer of Grade-17 without which the said statement carries no weight in the eyes of law. He further contends that before making the conceding statement by the learned counsel for the respondents he should have sought instructions from an officer of Grade-17 from the concerned department.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.

5. Heard. Record perused.

6. It is now an established law that Law Officers should not make a conceding statement in Court unless they have duly been instructed in writing by the competent authority and an officer not below the rank of Grade-17 should be present in the Court to verify and reiterate such instructions. The presence of the concerned officer must be recorded in the order of the Court and written instructions should be made a part of the record of the Court. In this regard reference may be made to report of the Attorney General for Pakistan containing recommendations on the subject duly approved by the Hon'ble Supreme of Pakistan in Notification No.F.5(2)/2003, -- AGP dated 27.05.2003. The afore-noted recommendations are published in PLD 2003 Journal page 95.

7. The afore-noted recommendations have been approved in case titled "Faisalabad Development Authority v. Raja Jahangir Nasir and others" (2004 SCR 1247).

8. The afore-referred judgment was not brought into the knowledge of the learned Single Judge in Chamber of this Court by the learned counsel for the parties at the time of arguments which judgment is binding under Article 189 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, hence, this is an error apparent on the record.

9. It is also an established law that if an order is passed in ignorance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, the same is liable to be reviewed by the same Court. Reference may be made to case reported as "Pakistan through Ministry of Finance Economic Affairs and another v. FECTO Belarus Tractors Limited" (PLD 2002 SC 208).

10. Relying upon the above-referred judgments the impugned order dated 27.06.2013 is reviewed and set aside. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. HBT/D-10/L Petition dismissed.