SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed  
 
 
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar 
 
 
Mr. Justice Faisal Arab 
 
 
Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan 
 
 
Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 
 
C.As.No.1076 to 1089/2019 
 [Against the judgment dated 20.02.2018, passed by the High Court of 
Balochistan, Quetta in W.Ps.No.288-292, 296-297 of 2012 ] 
 
Martin Dow Marker Ltd., Quetta. 
(in CAs No.1076-1082) 
Asadullah Khan. 
(in CA No.1083) 
Naeem Khan. 
(in CA No.1084) 
Muhammad Shamrez Khan.   
(in CA No.1085) 
Noor ur Rehman. 
(in CA No.1086) 
Rizwan Ali Bukhari. 
(in CA No.1087) 
Muhammad Aslam. 
(in CA No.1088) 
Banaras Khan. 
(in CA No.1089) 
 
…Appellant (s) 
Versus 
Asadullah Khan & others. 
(in CA No.1076) 
Muhammad Aslam & others. 
(in CA No.1077) 
Banaras Khan & others. 
(in CA No.1078) 
Noor ur Rehman & others. 
(in CA No.1079) 
Muhammad Shamrez & others. 
(in CA No.1080) 
Rizwan Ali Bukhari & others.  
(in CA No.1081) 
Naeem Khan & others. 
(in CA No.1082) 
Merck (Private Ltd.), Quetta & others. (in CAs No.1083-1089) 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant (s) 
(in CAs No.1076-1082) and  
For the Respondent (s) 
(in CAs No.1083-1089) 
: Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, ASC 
Mr. Habib ur Rehman, Head of 
Admn, Martin Dow. 
 
  
For the Respondent (s) 
(in CAs No.1076-1082) and  
For the Appellant (s) 
(in CAs No.1083-1089) 
: Mr. Muhammad Sajid Khan, ASC 
Mr. Ayaz Khan Swati, Addl.A.G. 
Balochistan 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 05.12.2019 
 
 
J U D G M E N T 
 
 
GULZAR AHMED, J. —  The private respondents in 
C.As.1076 to 1082 of 2019 and appellants in C.As.1083 to 1089 of 
C.As.No.1076 to 1089/2019 
- 2 - 
 
 
 
2019 (the respondents) were employed by the Martin Dow Marker 
Limited/appellant-company in C.As.1076 to 1082 of 2019 and 
Merck Private Ltd. (whose operations were acquired by Martin Dow 
Marker Limited)/respondent-company in C.As.1083 to 1089 of 
2019 (the appellant). Some of the respondents were employed 
directly as officers and others were promoted as officers. Vide letter 
dated 22.05.2009, the services of all the respondents were 
terminated on the ground that their services were no longer 
required by the appellant-company. The respondents challenged 
the termination orders by filing grievance petitions before the 
Labour Court. Such grievance petitions were allowed by the Labour 
Court vide judgment dated 29.06.2011 with the direction to the 
appellant to reinstate the respondents in service with full back 
benefits. The appellant filed appeals before the Labour Appellate 
Tribunal, which were dismissed vide judgment dated 17.04.2012. 
Thereafter, the appellant filed Constitution Petitions before the 
High Court of Balochistan at Quetta. The High Court, through the 
impugned judgment dated 20.02.2018, disposed of these petitions, 
maintaining the relief of reinstatement in service of the 
respondents as granted by the Labour Court and upheld by the 
Labour Appellate Tribunal but disallowed back benefits to the 
respondents. The appellant as well as the respondents have 
challenged the said judgment of the High Court by filing separate 
appeals before this Court.  
 
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that 
the respondents were not workmen but were appointed or 
C.As.No.1076 to 1089/2019 
- 3 - 
 
 
 
promoted as officers. He states that they were being paid the 
salaries of officers and that the work assigned to them was also 
that of officers. Additionally, the respondents were not members of 
the workers’ union and those who were promoted as officers, had 
their names removed from the membership of the workers’ union. 
He has contended that all the forums below, have in this regard 
misread the evidence on the record and have based their findings 
merely on oral assertions made by the respondents and not on any 
written material. He has further contended, that the respondents’ 
conduct throughout the proceedings has been aimed at keeping 
the appellant entangled in the litigation without demonstrating 
their bona fides to work as employees, and that this is well 
reflected by the fact that they are using the Court and its 
proceedings as a tool for their enrichment without doing any work 
whatsoever for the appellant. He has referred to a letter dated 
26.02.2018, issued by the appellant to each of the respondents  
where all the respondents were reinstated in service and asked to 
report for duty, however, none of the respondents replied to such 
letter  nor reported for duty uptill now, rather oral objection of the 
respondents heard by the appellant was that they should be 
reinstated as officers and not as workmen, despite the fact that 
they were offered salary of officers, similar to the one they were 
drawing at the time of their termination or rather more than that. 
Learned counsel has further contended that the respondents have 
conducted themselves in such a manner, where their very 
approach appears to be not bona fide, rather it appears that they 
are pursuing these cases with unclean hands, and hence, equity 
C.As.No.1076 to 1089/2019 
- 4 - 
 
 
 
does not entitle them to any relief; more so, the relief of 
reinstatement granted to the respondents by the forums below 
ought to be refused to them.  
 
3. 
 
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 
respondents has contended that so far as the question, as to 
whether the respondents were workmen or not, is concerned, the 
same has been established before the Labour Court through 
evidence and the Labour Court has accepted such position of the 
respondents and declared them to be workmen. Such finding of the 
Labour Court was upheld by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, so 
also by the High Court and now at this stage, such concurrent 
finding of the three forums below cannot be interfered with by this 
Court.  
 
4. 
 
Learned counsel for the respondents was confronted 
with the letter dated 26.02.2018, sent by the appellant, whereby 
the respondents were reinstated in service, he admitted that such 
letter was issued by the appellant to all the respondents but the 
respondents did not accept the same for the reason that they were 
being reinstated as workmen and not as officers, which was the job 
they were undertaking at the time of their termination.  
 
5. 
 
We have considered the submissions of the learned 
counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of 
the case.  
 
6. 
 
The question about respondents being workmen or not 
need not detain us for long for the reason that such question has 
C.As.No.1076 to 1089/2019 
- 5 - 
 
 
 
already been considered by the Labour Court so also by the Labour 
Appellate Tribunal and there is concurrent finding of fact that the 
respondents are workmen and such concurrent finding has also 
been upheld by the High Court by the impugned judgment. For 
displacing such concurrent finding of fact, upheld by the High 
Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the 
Constitution, learned counsel for the appellant was required to 
show and establish misreading of evidence and wrongful exercise 
of jurisdiction by the forums below in holding that the respondents 
were workmen. Incidentally, no evidence from record was shown to 
us, which may lend support to the submissions of the learned 
counsel for the appellant that the respondents were not workmen. 
Thus, we are not persuaded to disturb the finding of the forums 
below on this question.  
 
7. 
 
As regards further submission of the learned counsel 
for the appellant that the respondents were issued letter dated 
26.02.2018 by the appellant by which the respondents were 
reinstated in service by the appellant but none of the respondents 
have 
reported 
for 
duty 
uptill 
now 
needs 
some 
serious 
consideration.    
 
8. 
 
After having succeeded in the three forums below, the 
respondents were issued respective letter of reinstatement in 
service dated 26.02.2018 by the appellant, a copy whereof is 
available at page 191 of the record of Civil Appeal No.1076 of 2019. 
The learned counsel for the respondents admitted issuance of this 
letter of reinstatement to all the respondents and also admitted 
C.As.No.1076 to 1089/2019 
- 6 - 
 
 
 
that pursuant to this letter none of the respondents have joined 
duty with the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents was 
asked to give reasons as to why the respondents have not complied 
with the order of reinstatement contained in the letter dated 
26.02.2018, he stated that the respondents were employed as 
officers, however, by this letter of reinstatement they were not 
given employment as officers but that of a workman. Learned 
counsel for the respondents was also asked whether any of the 
remunerations and dues were reduced by the appellant by this 
letter of reinstatement dated 26.02.2018, his reply was in negative. 
This scenario, before this Court, obviously, created a serious issue 
regarding the bona fide of the respondents. The very bona fide of 
the respondents in pursuing their remedies before the Courts of 
law seeking their reinstatement in service of the appellant, 
becomes doubtful, in that, the contention of the learned counsel 
for the appellant that the respondents are pursuing these cases 
only for obtaining monetary benefits and have no intention, desire 
or will, to work as workmen in the establishment of the appellant, 
seems convincing, more so, when it was not seriously disputed by 
learned counsel for the respondents.  
 
9. 
 
This development before us, led us to take a step back 
and ponder on the very bona fide of the respondents in pursuing 
these cases before the Courts of law, for that, through letter dated 
26.02.2018, they were reinstated but admittedly till date, none of 
them have joined duty with the appellant. We have asked the 
learned counsel for the respondents to show that any written 
C.As.No.1076 to 1089/2019 
- 7 - 
 
 
 
communication by the respondents to the appellant in response to 
the letter of reinstatement dated 26.02.2018 was made, he replied 
in the negative, meaning thereby that the respondents have not 
objected to the letter of reinstatement. Non objection to the letter of 
reinstatement and also non reporting for duty reflect gravely on the 
part of the respondents.  
 
10. 
 
We may note that the appellant in the letter of 
reinstatement has given two days’ time to the respondents to join 
duty, failing which they will be marked absent and appropriate 
action will be taken. It is obvious that neither the respondents 
reported for duty nor action was taken by the appellant. We have 
tried to balance this very aspect of the matter and have resolved 
the same by reasoning that the respondents had no reason or 
justification at all nor any was shown to us for their none reporting 
for duty on their reinstatement in service by letter dated 
26.02.2018.  
 
11. 
 
On the other hand, there being three judgments of the 
forums below in favour of the respondents on the point of 
reinstatement and appellant having filed these appeals, which 
being pending, the appellant in deference did not take action 
against the respondents for the none reporting for duty, rather 
placed the copy of letter of reinstatement on record of their appeals 
and left the matter to be dealt with by this Court, which in our 
view, was the fair and correct conduct of the appellant. Further, if 
the appellant had taken action against the respondents, multiple 
C.As.No.1076 to 1089/2019 
- 8 - 
 
 
 
litigation would have arisen and there would be no end to the 
dispute.  
 
12. 
 
There is no denial of the fact that under Standing 
Order 15 of the Schedule to the Industrial and Commercial 
Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, non-obeying of a 
reasonable order of the employer by the employee and remaining 
absent from duty for more than 10 days constitute misconduct on 
the part of an employee, the penalty for which includes dismissal 
from service.  Here in this case, the respondents have not obeyed 
the order of reinstatement of their employer, the appellant, and 
have also remained absent from duty for more than one year and 
nine months and the respondents have given no reason whatsoever 
for not complying with the letter of reinstatement in service dated 
26.02.2018, except an oral assertion that they were offered 
reinstatement as workmen and not as officers.  This assertion, on 
the part of the respondents itself is contradictory, for that, they 
have themselves approached the Labour Court claiming to be 
workmen and the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal 
having given concurrent finding of fact that the respondents were 
workmen and such concurrent finding of fact having being upheld 
by the High Court vide the impugned judgment, it was altogether 
unbecoming on the part of the respondents to claim their 
reinstatement as officers and such desire of the respondents, by no 
means, can be considered to be a reasonable one.  This Court 
under Article 187(1) of the Constitution has the power to issue 
such directions, orders or decrees, as may be necessary for doing 
C.As.No.1076 to 1089/2019 
- 9 - 
 
 
 
complete justice and in doing so, the Court is also empowered to 
look at the changed circumstances of the case as it has appeared 
before it and also to mould relief as is just and proper for meeting 
the ends of justice.  Reference in this regard is made to the case of 
Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Prime 
Minister of Pakistan and 9 others [PLD 2017 SC 265]; Muhammad 
Zahid v. Dr. Muhammad Ali [PLD 2014 SC 488]; DOSSANI Travels 
(Pvt) Ltd. & others v. M/s Travels Shop (Pvt) Ltd. & others [PLD 2014 
SC 1]; Mst. Amatul Begum v. Muhammad Ibrahim Shaikh [2004 
SCMR 1934]; and Imam Bakhsh & 2 others v. Allah Wasaya & 2 
others [2002 SCMR 1985].  
 
13. 
 
We may note that in exercising the jurisdiction to do 
complete justice and to issue directions, orders or decrees, as may 
be necessary, this Court is not bound by any procedural 
technicality when a glaring fact is very much established on the 
record and even stand admitted.  Reference in this regard is made 
to the case of Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Hussain [2001 
SCMR 827]; Gul Usman & 2 others v. Mst. Ahmero & 11 others 
[2000 SCMR 866]; and S.A.M. Wahidi v. Federation of Pakistan 
through Secretary Finance & others [1999 SCMR 1904]. 
 
14. 
 
This Court does not wish to go on the premise that the 
respondents have committed misconduct of non-obedience of 
reasonable order of their employer or have remained absent from 
duty for more than ten days, in terms of Standing Order 15 ibid, 
but takes a simplistic view of the matter, as has unfolded before it 
that of respondents own making, showing no regard to the orders 
C.As.No.1076 to 1089/2019 
- 10 - 
 
 
 
of the three forums below, which they have obtained on their own 
grievance petitions, by which they were reinstated in service and 
such reinstatement was granted by the appellant.  Thus, it appears 
that the respondents themselves abandoned the relief they had 
obtained from the forums below. Nothing was shown to us by the 
learned counsel for the respondents that the findings of the High 
Court, not allowing the back benefits to the respondents, could be 
found to be suffering from any misreading of the record or 
wrongful exercise of jurisdiction.  
 
15. 
 
In this view of the matter, the appeals filed by the 
respondents (Civil Appeals No.1083 to 1089 of 2019), are 
dismissed. 
 
16. 
 
So far as the appeals filed by the appellant are 
concerned, the same have been filed challenging the impugned 
judgment, 
whereby 
the 
respondents 
have 
been 
granted 
reinstatement in service only. It is already observed above that the 
respondents have themselves abandoned the relief of reinstatement 
in service granted to them as is established from the fact that as 
back as on 26.02.2018, they were given letter of reinstatement in 
service by the appellant, which reinstatement in service was not 
accepted by the respondents as they remained absent from duty. 
During the course of hearing before the Court, the learned counsel 
for the respondents did not at all mention that the respondents are 
willing and prepared to report for duty and work in the 
establishment of the appellant. Thus, where the respondents 
themselves are not willing and prepared to work in the 
C.As.No.1076 to 1089/2019 
- 11 - 
 
 
 
establishment of the appellant and this conduct of the respondents 
is apparently, based upon the fact that they are not going to get 
any monetary benefit pursuant to the impugned judgment and also 
the letter of reinstatement, for that, the impugned judgment has 
not allowed back benefits to them and such also stands refused by 
this Court. The respondents seem to be content and satisfied with 
their current situation, whatever it may be. In this view of the 
matter, the only conclusion which could be arrived at is none other 
than that of allowing the appeals filed by the appellant.  
Consequently, the appeals filed by the appellant (Civil Appeals No. 
1076 to 1082 of 2019) are allowed and the impugned judgment 
dated 20.02.2018 passed by the learned Division Bench of the 
High Court allowing the reinstatement in service of the 
respondents is set aside.  No order as to costs. 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
JUDGE 
 
Larger Bench-II 
ISLAMABAD  
05.12.2019 
Approved for reporting. 
Rabbani*/