A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry rejected the company’s appeal and ruled that the labourers were unfairly locked-out in 1991.

In a short order issued on Thursday evening, the bench, also comprising Justice Jawwad S Khawaja and Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, upheld the 2005 decision of the Sindh High Court (SHC).

“The apex court has decided in favour of the employees and the company should allow them to join services and pay all the outstanding dues. However, the company has the option to file for a review but the affected employees cannot be deprived further as long as the court stays its order,” Advocate Abid Hassan Minto told The Express Tribune.

The case started in 1991 when Pak-Saudi Fertilizer was taken over by the army and renamed Fauji Fertilizer. The 250 employees — hired earlier through a contractor by Pak-Saudi Fertilizer — were removed soon after.

Two parallel cases were filed against the hiring of the employees. The union of the ousted workers, Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA), took the case up to the National Industrial Relations Court (NIRC) to challenge the agreement, alleging that the labourers were hired illegally as the CBA was put under duress to sign the agreement and it should therefore be set aside.

Separately, the locked-out labourers also moved the labour court against their ouster, saying they were condemned unheard. No show-cause notices were served and they were not heard before being fired by the company.

In 1994, the court decided both the cases in favour of the labourers. Following the decision, the company moved the appellant labour tribunal against the decisions but lost their cases. Later in 2006, Fauji Fertilizer moved the SHC against the decision, but the high court once again directed the company to consider the labourers as its employees and pay them their dues.

The company then approached the apex court to appeal the high court’s decision.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 18^th, 2013.

The notices, issued to the Inter-Services Intelligence, Military Intelligence and Intelligence Bureau, come amid allegations by the lawyers accusing agencies of harassing members of the legal community.

The three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, is hearing cases concerning the abduction and harassment of lawyers.

In its hearing, the apex court bench directed City Police Officer Rawalpindi Abdul Razzaq Cheema to submit a report on fresh incidents of harassment of lawyers Faisal Butt and Raheel Khan. Unknown people had tried to abduct Butt in the early hours of the morning on May 14 near Sadiqabad.

With lawyers complaining that vehicles with tinted glasses were used in abductions, Cheema told the court that as per the court’s earlier order 2,255 vehicles with tinted glasses had been penalised.

Appearing before the bench, Inspector General Punjab Aftab Sultan and Inspector General Islamabad Binyamin submitted standard operating procedures for the security of lawyers in the twin cities.

The police chiefs informed the court that eight threatened lawyers were being provided security details while police patrolling had been increased on routes frequented by the legal community.

Justice Khawaja asked police investigators to uncover the motive behind the abduction and harassment of lawyers. This he said would help identify the real culprits.

It is worth mentioning that as many as five lawyers have already been abducted and tortured. These include Basharatullah Khan, Mujeebur Rehman Kiani, Sardar Manzar Bashir.

Rawalpindi police, acting on information about the abductions, had earlier booked activists of former president Pervez Musharraf’s All Pakistan Muslim League (APML) for the torture of the lawyers.

The apex court bench has directed the CPO to hold an inquiry against SP Rawal division, Haroon Joya for assisting in the escape of the accused in the abductions.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 17^th, 2013.

“I never considered resignation as a desirable option. I will not hurry to take such a decision after the change of government following the May 11 general elections,” he said on Wednesday when asked by journalists whether he would continue with the new government or not.

Qadir, a former PCO judge of the Lahore High Court and a former law secretary, said he would hold office as long as the appointing authority wished and added that so far he has not been asked to relinquish his post.

The attorney general, known for his belligerent attitude towards the judiciary, was appointed by President Zardari on April 13, 2012. The prime minister had no role in his appointment, he said.

Qadir said he was allowed, under the Constitution to voice his independent opinion besides conveying the federal government’s versions to the court.

He claimed that there had been many decisions of the Supreme Court that were inconsistent with the Constitution and the law, and believed the new government would introduce legislation to remove such inconsistencies. He added that judges should use contempt of court powers sparingly as the practice did not help in improving the judiciary’s image.

Responding to questions, however, he said he considered the judiciary, led by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, the most independent one, and hoped it would prove itself to be the most impartial one as well.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 16^th, 2013.

“The detained men stated that they were never produced before any court of law, either for remand or for trial,” noted the three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. “However, a tehsildar informed them in [the] district jail [of] Kohat that they had been convicted and sentenced.”

The seven men, presented before the bench by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa authorities, looked healthy, but complained that their plight was being completely ignored.

The assistant political agent (APA) of Lower Orakzai Agency, Mawaz Khan, convicted the seven men on May 2, 2013. Five of the men – Dr Niaz Ahmed, Muhammad Shafique, Gulroze, Shafique ur Rehman and Mazarul Haq – were sentenced to a 14-year-long jail term, while the other two – Abdul Basit and Abdul Majid – were sentenced to 5 years imprisonment, on the charges of carrying illegal arms and aiding in terrorist attacks on convoys of the Pakistan Army.

The additional political agent, on behalf of the APA, shared the record of the proceedings with the bench. According to the files, the court of the APA had set May 17 as the date of the next hearing for the production of the seven men, but they were sentenced on May 2.

“Your record showed that the APA convicted the men on May 2 and the court of the APA, on same day, directed the concerned authorities to produce the accused persons …before this, the seven men were never produced before the court,” observed Justice Ijaz Afzal Chaudhry.

Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, another member of the bench, also noted severe irregularities. “March 22, 2013 is mentioned as date of arrest of these men in your records, but they were being detained long before that,” he said.

Expressing doubts over the trial and conviction, the bench directed the Attorney General of Pakistan to help in determining whether the seven men had been dealt with in accordance with Article 10-A –  the right to a fair trial. .

Furthermore, the bench directed Mawaz, who convicted the men, and Shan Zeb, the additional secretary of law and order in K-P, to submit all the copies of the relevant records regarding the trial and conviction of the seven men. Additionally, Peshawar Jail authorities were ordered to allow the families of the detained men to visit them, in accordance with jail manuals.

Responding to a court query, detained Dr Niaz Ahmed said that they had been shifted many times – from the internment centre at Parachinar to Kohat Jail, then to Bannu Jail and now to Peshawar Jail. He categorically stated that they were never given the opportunity to defend themselves.

The additional advocate general of K-P informed the bench that five men were currently being kept in Peshawar central jail and two in the district jail of Haripur.

The hearing was adjourned until May 22.

The story of the eleven, not seven

Talking to media persons after the hearing, the convicts said they were lifted from Adiala in 2010, even after they were acquitted on all terrorism charges registered against them in Rawalpindi and Attock in 2007.

Niaz said that four others, Saboor, Tehseen ullah, Muhammad Amir and Saed Arab, had died in the custody of intelligence agencies. He said he feared a similar fate.

It may be recalled that a lawyer representing the ISI and MI earlier denied that eleven men were taken away from Adiala Jail. Instead, he claimed that they were arrested from the restive areas of Fata for carrying out armed attacks on official convoys.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 15^th, 2013.

A three-judge Supreme Court bench, comprising of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja and Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, directed the Capital Development authority (CDA) to furnish the list of persons to whom agriculture plots were allotted in the federal capital.

The bench was hearing a suo motu case on the conversion of agro-farms into palatial houses, marriage halls and other businesses in violation of rules.

These agricultural plots were leased out to influential people and institutions in eight suburban areas of the capital including Chak Shahzad, Murree Road, Kahuta Road and Tarlai Kalan.

The CDA counsel Afnan Kundi informed the Supreme Court bench that notices have been served on people who were using agriculture farms for purposes other than agriculture.

He said that the authority had asked the owners of the farms to remove all illegal constructions within 45 days of receiving the notices.

The counsel said the civic agency wanted to restore the 504 agro-farms to their original shape and would not spare any person.

Kundi placed the summary of the decisions taken by CDA on record and said the permission for construction on additional area was given without any rationale and justification, and should be declared void and reverted to its original position of 4,850 square feet.

The maximum permissible covered area of houses on agro-farm plots was originally limited to one storey and 4,850 square feet. However, in 2004, the size was increased to 10,000sq.ft and later, increased to 12,500sq.ft along with permission to construct additional storey.

CDA Estate Management Director Aslam Chaudhry said that the leasing of plots for setting up agro-farms began in the 1970s. Later, such plots were given on the recommendation of the high ups, while after the 1980s no agriculture plots were given to anyone.

He said there were three categories of the allottees: The first was for persons affected by Islamabad’s development, whose lands were acquired for development of different urban sectors; the second group was of those who were allotted plots on the recommendation of senior CDA and government officials; while the third category is of those who were given plots on lease.

The plots were given with the intention that they would produce agriculture and poultry products to meet the needs of the residents and helping control prices, but with the passage of time, the owners started misusing the farms for residential or commercial purposes.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 15^th, 2013.

ISLAMABAD: The seven missing prisoners of the Adiala jail case were presented before the Supreme Court of Pakistan on Tuesday.

The seven men had allegedly been picked up from outside Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail in May 2010 after they were acquitted in all terrorism cases charged against them in Rawalpindi and Attock in 2007.

The seven missing prisoners were produced before the three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry by the Peshawar jail authorities on the court’s order.

They looked unharmed but complained of being deliberately kept in the dark about their trial proceedings and subsequent imprisonment.

The Supreme Court had earlier expressed its reservation about whether the prisoners were being given a fair trial by the political administration of Orakzai agency and had directed the relevant authorities to present them before the Court.

“The records mention March 22 2013 is as the date of arrest of these seven men but these men have been in kept in detention before that,” stated Justice Jawwad S Khawaja.

The three-judge bench sought Attorney General of Pakistan’s counsel to identify if the convicted men had been dealt in accordance with Article 10-A which states the right to a fair trial.

The APA of Orakzai Mawaz Khan was then directed to submit copies of the relevant trial records.

The bench also directed the Peshawar Jail authorities to allow the families of the detained men to meet them.

One of the detained prisoner said that the prisoners were never given the opportunity to defend themselves through a lawyer.

“We’re not sure about our future,” he said.

Earlier, a lawyer representing the intelligence agencies had denied knowing that any prisoners were picked up from Adiala Jail and claimed that they were arrested from FATA for carrying out armed attacks on the Pakistan Army.

The hearing was adjourned till May 22.

“We direct that Chaudhry Saifullah Gill of the PML-N is restrained from contesting the election from constituency No. PP-61 Faisalabad,” directed a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.

The bench had taken up an appeal of a PML-Q candidate Khalid Pervaiz Gill against the April 25, 2013 order of the Lahore High Court (LHC) in which the court had refused to interfere in the election process.

Khalid Pervaiz had moved the apex court against the candidature of Saifullah Gill regarding an objection presented before the Returning Officer (RO) that Saifullah had tampered with his secondary school certificate showing his date of birth as April 2 1979 instead of August 2, 1981 at the time when he was a candidate for the seat of Nazim of Union Council 134 in 2005.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 11^th, 2013.

“I will try to avoid an opinion on taking any action against those who took unconstitutional steps. I would say no one should be tried, not even judges,” Irfan Qadir said.

The attorney general (AG) was replying to a question by Justice Khilji Arif Hussain that what was his opinion about the actions of October 1999 and November 2007.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja is hearing a set of petitions seeking treason trial of Musharraf for imposing state of emergency and holding the Constitution in abeyance on November 3 2007.

Qadir called the imposition of martial law in 1999 and the state of emergency in 2007 by Musharraf unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful but insisted he would never advise for trial of those who took these actions, abetted or benefitted.

The AG said the SC may not get involved in the controversy of trying Musharraf because it will question its independence and bring the court into ridicule.

“The Constitution and law has not left the matter of treason trial for the courts and it is only the federal government that can initiate the proceedings,” the Advocate General said adding the SC was not empowered under the Constitution to initiate such proceedings.

The top prosecutor of the country giving the stance of the caretaker government on trying Musharraf for treason said it was not the mandate of the interim setup and it would not take any decision that could question its impartiality.

“Any decision about initiation of the treason trial (against Pervez Musharraf) will have far reaching political ramifications as it in either way would have an effect on the political parties and other institutions,” the AG said.

Musharraf’s lawyer prayed to the court to dismiss these petitions as the petitioners had no standing and the matter in question was not of public interest.

Judges may not hear their own case

Earlier the former president in his written response once again raised objections over the constitution of the bench hearing the petitions.

Musharraf’s counsel, Ahmed Raza Khan Kasuri said the judges deposed during the state of emergency imposed by his client may not hear the case. “No man can be judge in his own case under the principle of natural justice,” said Kasuri in his written arguments on behalf of Musharraf.

“All the present judges of this court and also many judges of the high courts are direct affectees of the November 3, 2007 emergency and the PCO,” he said adding that being victims of the action their judgement could not be deemed impartial.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 10^th, 2013.

A three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, took exception to a fresh application that alleged that families had lost contact with seven surviving missing persons namely Mazharul Haq, Shafiqur Rehman, Muhammad Shafiq, Dr Niaz Ahmed, Abdul Majid, Gulroze and Abdul Basit.

It was in May 2010 that 11 men after being acquitted in four different terrorism cases from a trial court had allegedly gone missing from outside Adiala Jail.

The bench also directed the authorities to submit relevant records of any trial proceedings of these persons at the next date of hearing.

Advocate Tariq Asad, who was representing the families of missing persons, moved the application that stated that these men had been detained in Kohat Jail, from where they had been relocated to detention centres in Parachinar in Kurram Agency.

The application stated that it was on May 2, 2013 that a person, who was later identified as a tehsildar (a revenue administrative officer), came to the prisoners and informed them that two of them had been sentenced to five years and five others to 14 years in jail. Later, on May 4, the men were shifted to an undisclosed location, the application said.

The lawyer informed the court that since the matter had been pending in the apex court since 2010, four men out of the 11 had died while in custody of the intelligence agencies, adding that the authorities had convicted these men and sentenced them to different jail terms without any trial.

However, Advocate Raja Irshad, who represented the ISI and the MI, informed the SC that these men had been involved in different armed attacks on army’s convoys in Fata and would be tried under army laws.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 9^th, 2013.

The claim created a commotion in the courtroom where hearing was under way of petitions demanding that Musharraf be tried for treason for imposing emergency, holding the constitution in abeyance and deposing judges.

Sheikh Ahsanuddin Advocate, one of the petitioners, and other lawyers present in the courtroom objected to the remarks of Ahmed Raza Kasuri and urged the three-member bench headed by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja to restrain Musharraf’s lawyer from making such claims.

“Let him say anything he wants to say,” Justice Khawaja said, adding it would be better for Kasuri to focus on legal arguments rather than political ones.

Justice Khawaja said that the rule of law would never destabilise the country. “The days when judiciary used to shy away from facing tough questions had gone,” he said.

Abettors to treason

Kasuri said that if Musharraf was to be charged with treason for imposing emergency in 2007, the people that had supported him in imposing martial law in 1999 should also be held accountable.

The dictator was at the helm of affairs due to abettment of the top brass of the armed forces and the judiciary, he said, asking rhetorically whether they would be tried too.

Kasuri argued that by giving constitutional cover to the military takeover and the overthrow of an elected government by Musharraf in 1999, the judiciary had abetted in the imposition of the martial law and was thus also responsible for the action of November 3, 2007 taken by the regime.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 8^th, 2013.