ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court held that the Court (SC or HC) has to assess the contempt and its gravity and may also purge it if an unqualified apology is tendered by the contemnor, but there is no concept or parameter to relieve or emancipate the contemnors on the notion that substantial compliance has been made.
A three-judge bench headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and comprising Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan decided that on the appeals against the Sindh High Court (SHC)’s judgment.
The judgment said that a noteworthy and acclaimed characteristic of the canons of jurisdiction should not have been relegated, which is that neither should the Court embark on the jurisdiction not vested in it by law, nor should it abdicate or renounce a jurisdiction so vested in it by law.
The apex court noted that if the judgment of High Court is not implemented in its letter and spirit, it is evident that the High Court ought to have taken all necessary steps for compliance of its judgment or order to alleviate the suffering of the beneficiary, rather than divesting or repudiating its jurisdiction as vested under Article 204 of the Constitution read with the provisions of the Ordinance. Although the impugned order does not reflect any compliance on record, it asserts that “substantial compliance” has been made without requiring any proof.
“It is not clear whether the petitioners when filed their claims in compliance of the orders passed by the High Court, the respondent filed any reply for challenging or disputing the figure or amount of claim or made any efforts to account for or set off the amount if already paid to the petitioners in compliance of the judgment of the High Court. All these crucial rudiments are missing,” said the SC judgment.
The High Court must have ensured the due compliance of its own judgment rather than instructing the petitioners to seek an appropriate remedy for compliance or implementation of judgment. The Court has to evaluate the compliance of its judgment in its entirety and not the ratio or percentage of compliance. The denial of exercising jurisdiction proactively in the contempt proceedings for revitalising and assuring the compliance of judgment not only rendered the main judgment worthless and inconsequential but for all practical purposes, also undermined the writ of the Court and water down the efficacy of the orders passed by different benches in the same proceedings on 25.03.2021, 22.04.2021, 26.05.2021, 13.10.2021, and 23.11.2021 for ensuring the compliance.
The Court (SC) noted that the representative of the management undertook to ensure the payment of dues. On various occasions, time was enlarged for making payments. However, surprisingly, the management took a summersault and pleaded that the petitioners were paid all their dues at the time of termination on 13.03.1996 and the remaining salary of the petitioners for 13 days, which was due at the time of termination, was also paid to them
The apex court directed the appeals against the Order dated 30.11.2021, whereby the High Court of Sindh disposed of the application (M.A. No.1719/2020) moved by the petitioners under Section 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, for non-compliance of the judgment rendered by the divisional bench of the Sindh High Court in the Constitution Petition NoD-217 of 2001.
The SC set aside the SHC’s judgment and remanded the matter back to the High Court for deciding the CMA No1719 of 2010 afresh and for examining whether the judgment has been implemented as per the directions issued by the High Court or not.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.