Govt. of Balochistan through Secretary Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Quetta V. M/s Campaigner Associates (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive and others,
PCrLJ 2017 1391 · Balochistan High Court
The case concerned a construction dispute between the Government of Balochistan's Education Department and a private contractor, Campaigner Associates, over a project to build workshops, classrooms, and a hostel at a Government Polytechnic Institute in Quetta. The contractor claimed it had completed the work satisfactorily but was not paid amounts owed, including payment for extra work, compensation for delayed payments, and losses from work stoppages. After earlier court intervention directed the parties to resolve the dispute through arbitration, an umpire was appointed by mutual consent and issued an award largely favoring the contractor, finding it had completed the work to the department's satisfaction and was entitled to most of its claims.
The trial court then made this arbitration award a formal rule of the court, essentially confirming it as legally binding. The government appealed, but the High Court noted that despite being given multiple opportunities, the government's lawyer failed to file any objections to the award before the trial court, and its right to object was eventually forfeited due to repeated delays.
The High Court dismissed the government's appeal, holding that its lawyer could not point out any real legal error in the trial court's decision, and that the government could not avoid its payment obligations simply because the project had since been wound up. This case illustrates how courts uphold arbitration awards when a party fails to properly contest them through available legal procedures, reinforcing the finality and enforceability of arbitration outcomes.
یہ مقدمہ حکومتِ بلوچستان کے محکمہ تعلیم اور ایک نجی ٹھیکیدار کمپینر ایسوسی ایٹس کے درمیان ایک تعمیراتی تنازعے سے متعلق تھا، جو کوئٹہ میں گورنمنٹ پولی ٹیکنیک انسٹیٹیوٹ میں ورکشاپس، کلاس رومز اور ہاسٹل کی تعمیر کے منصوبے پر پیدا ہوا تھا۔ ٹھیکیدار کا موقف تھا کہ اس نے کام تسلی بخش طریقے سے مکمل کر لیا تھا مگر اسے واجب الادا رقوم ادا نہیں کی گئیں، جن میں اضافی کام کا معاوضہ، تاخیر سے ادائیگی کا ہرجانہ، اور کام کی معطلی کے باعث ہونے والے نقصانات شامل تھے۔ عدالت کی جانب سے پہلے فریقین کو ثالثی کے ذریعے تنازعہ حل کرنے کی ہدایت دیے جانے کے بعد، باہمی رضامندی سے ایک ثالث (امپائر) مقرر کیا گیا جس نے بڑی حد تک ٹھیکیدار کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا، یہ قرار دیتے ہوئے کہ اس نے محکمے کی تسلی کے مطابق کام مکمل کیا تھا اور وہ اپنے بیشتر دعووں کا حقدار ہے۔
اس کے بعد ٹرائل کورٹ نے اس ثالثی فیصلے