149/2013 Const. P. National Refinery Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Mst.Farida Begum & Ors (Respondent)

149/2013 Const. P. National Refinery Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Mst.Farida Begum & Ors (Respondent) Sindh High Court

Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author) Order Date: 20-DEC-17

Once an application under order I rule 10 CPC was filed, respondent No.3/Commissioner assumes the jurisdiction to pass order under the law. Any order that transgresses its authority and jurisdiction is then to be tested on the touchstone of principle whether a substantial relief likely to be granted to the respondent No.1, has been impaired. Not only the petitioner was allegedly deleted but at an interim stage declaration has been made that petitioner is not the employer which is beyond the principle laid down in the case of Fauji Fertilizer Company Ltd. v. National Industrial Relations Commission reported in 2013 SCMR 1253. So if its authority and jurisdiction is to be analyzed on such touchstone it looks transgressed. By scoring off petitioner from the pleading it exercised jurisdiction not vested in him as in trial the determination was yet to be made. Scoring of petitioner from trial before trial is an act exercised with material irregularity. Presiding Officer held security company responsible and swap them and the intention was reflected in the order, (one comes in and other goes out). Besides this, such an option of reviewing the order was attempted to be exercised when an application under order IX rule 9 read with section 151 CPC was filed to set aside order dated 14.05.2011 which also met its conclusive dismissal on 05.01.2012 and the matter thereafter was fixed for framing of issues.