1. ' SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, C.J.---In this Constitutional petition, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:--
(A) That the impugned award be accordingly set aside and/or modified, further the respondent be directed to appoint another Wage Board to deliver a proper award and or pass such further orders that be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(B) Costs of the petition.
2. The grievance of the petitioners which forced them to file this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is with regard to the decision of 5th Wage Board in respect of the newspaper employees constituted under Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Newspaper Employees Act). This Wage Board was constituted by the Federal Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 9 of the Newspaper Employees Act for fixing the rates of wages in respect of newspaper employees. Its composition was of a Chairman and 15 Members.
3. The petitioner have assailed the Award of the 5th Wage Board on the grounds which have been mentioned under heading "GROUNDS" of the memo. Of petition. It was further submitted that it was an Award not by the Wage Board but of the Chairman only as it was signed solely by the Chairman. It was also submitted that the categorization of the employees made in the Wage Board Award was not permissible in view of section 10 of the Newspaper Employees Act which rendered the Award illegal and void.
4. ' We have heard the arguments of Mr. M.L. Shahani. Advocate along with Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Khalid Jawed Khan. Advocate for respondent No,3 and Mr. SajjadAli Shah. Standing counsel for the Federation and have also perused the material on record.
5. Before taking up the case on merits, it will be appropriate to take into consideration the objection raised by Mr. Khalid Jawed Khan and Mr. Sajjad Ali Shah with regard to the maintainability of this Constitutional Petition. Their objection was that before filing this Constitutional Petition the petitioners had filed a Suit in this Court wherein the plaint was presented on 20-6-1991 and vide order dated 24-9-1991 this Court had come to the conclusion that the Suit was barred by section 12 of the Newspaper Employees Act and section 22 of the Repealed Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Repealed I.R.O.) which rendered the plaint liable to be rejected under Order 7 rule 11 C.P.C. And rejected the plaint under Order 7, rule 11 C . P . C .
6. ' A copy of the plaint has also been filed along with the memo. Of petition as annexure 'D', From perusal thereof, it transpires that all the facts and circumstances mentioned in the memo. Of petition were mentioned in the Suit for Declaration and Injunction wherein the following reliefs were sought:-- "
(a) To declare that the categorisation of newspaper establishment made by 5th Wage Board is illegal invalid and without any legal effect.The plaintiff establishment should not be deemed and treated as newspaper establishment of Category ' A'
(b) To direct the condition of categorization of newspaper establishment as laid down in para 71 of the Award be revised in keeping with the prevailing economic conditions of the newspaper industry, by deleting the revenue from circulation and number of copies as the capability to pay wages is particularly dependant upon the income generated from advertisement revenue.
(c) To grant injunction restraining the defendant No,3 and its office-bearers from demanding implementation of wages in accordance with 5th Wage Board Award. As also stay the proceedings before the defendant No,2.
(d) Cost of the Suit.
(e) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary.
7. Further perusal of the plaint reveals that the grounds on which the 5th Wage Board Award was 'assailed or challenged in the said Suit were identical and similar to the grounds raised in this Constitutional Petition. In other words, it can be said that the facts and circumstances as well as the grounds with which the petitioners felt aggrieved with the Award of the 5th Wage Board had already been pleaded before a forum but were not considered on merits as the Suit was not found to be maintainable being specifically barred by the provisions of law. The petitioners did not assail the order of this Court dated 24-9-1991 by way of the an appeal as provided by section 96 and Order 41 the Civil Procedure Code, as a result of which the order dated 24-9-1991 attained finality barring any further legal recourse by the petitioners for assailing or challenging the 5th Wage Board Award in view of the principle that a party who fails or ignores to assail or challenge an adverse order in accordance with the provisions of law and allowed the order to attain finality then he would not be allowed to have recourse to Constitutional jurisdiction for redress of his grievance.
8. There are large number of cases in support of the above proposition and it will be useful to refer to two of them, which are as under:--
(i) Ch. Muhammad Ismail v. Fazal Zada, Civil Judge. Lahore and 20 others (PLD 1996 SC 246).
(ii) Mst. Kaniz Fatima through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Salim and 27 others (2001 SCMR 1493).
9. ' In the case of Ch. Muhammad Ismail (PLD 1996 SC 246), petitioner instead of assailing the order under section 96 read with Order 41 C.P.C. Filed a Constitutional Petition. The Supreme Court deprecated the course adopted by the plaintiff and held that it was not only unnecessarily increasing the workload of High Court but would also defeat the provisions of law by which such remedies were made available and further that such practice on part of litigant public would amount to abuse of Constitutional jurisdiction which should be exercised by High Court in exceptional circumstances to provide justice which could not otherwise be obtained by aggrieved parties. In the case of Mst. Kaniz Fatima (2001 SCMR 1493), while discussing the scope of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court made the following observations:-- "....By now it is well-settled that where a particular statute provides a self-contained machinery for the determination of questions arising under the Act as and where law provides a remedy by appeal or revision to another Tribunal fully competent to give any relief, any indulgence to the contrary by the High Court is bound to produce a sense of distrust in statutory Tribunals. Where, therefore, a petitioner without exhausting his remedy provided by the statute under which he complained had filed a writ petition, it was held that the application in the circumstances would not lie."
10. Upon the above discussion, we are of the view that the order dated 24-9-1991'of this Court not having been challenged in accordance with law attained finality and the petitioners could not be allowed to file a Constitutional Petition as it had attained finality. Reliance for the above is placed on the case of Messrs Tank Steel and Re-Rolling Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Dera Ismail Khan and others v.
11. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1996 SC 77).
12. Apart from the fact that this Constitutional Petition is found to be not maintainable in view of the above discussion, it is also pertinent to note that almost 14 years have passed since the Award was announced. The Award had been accepted by all the concerned persons except the petitioners and has been acted upon in material terms. Setting aside of the Award at this stage will completely upset and negate the actions taken in pursuance thereof. It is to be observed that grant of relief in Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and the same can be refused if it appears to the Court that instead of redressing the grievance of the petitioners it will create numerous and insurmountable problems and difficulties and place the Government and other connected agencies/establishments, in a state of confusion, which will definitely arise if the relief sought by the petitioners is granted.
13. Under Article 199 of the Constitthion, this Court has been given wide discretionary powers and discretion is to be exercised in such a way that mischief and chaos is prevented.. It is a well-settled principle that in exercise of its Constitutional Jurisdiction, the aggrieved party is not entitled to the relief claimed as a matter of night or course. Relief under the Constitutional Jurisdiction can be provided in accordance with law. Equity and good conscience and to foster cause of justice and for the good of public and the country at large. Even where the impugned order or action is found to be illegal, this Court may decline to press into service its Constitutional Jurisdiction and refuse the relief sought for if doing so would instead of advancing cause of justice or public good defeat the same. If any authority is required in support of the above proposition, the same is available from the judgment in the case of Messrs Kotri Textile Mills Ltd., Dhabeji through Factory Manager v.
14. Union Council, Dhabeji and 2 others (PLD 1994 Karachi 71). The Supreme Court in the case of Federation of Pakistan and others v. Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan and others (PLD 1989 SC 166) pronounced that even if the Court found that a party had a good case it might refrain from giving him relief if greater harm was likely to be caused thereby then the one should to be remedied. It was further observed that individual interest was to be subordinated to the collective good. Mr. Khalid Jawed Khan, Advocate for 'respondent No,3 submitted that the employees of other newspapers establishments were provided the benefit of the pay scales recommended in the 5th Wage Board Award and havebeen drawing their salaries and allowances in the said scales for the last more than ten (10) years and they will be deprived of the said pay-scales inasmuch as it the 5th Wage Board Award is held to be contrary to the provisions of the Newspaper Employees Act.
15. Illegal and void then it will be a nullity, all the actions taken thereunder and benefits provided to the employees of the establishments of newspapers will have to be recalled/cancelled or rescinded.
16. He further submitted that the newspapers employees on account of revision of their salaries in pursuance of the recommended scales in the 5th Wage Board Award had been benefited by increase in their salaries and allowances 'which the establishments of the newspapers would become entitled to recover from them on the ground that the employees were not entitled to any increase in the salaries and allowances. The pronouncement made in this case is applicable on all fours to the facts of this case. The petitioners cannot be granted the relief sought by them.
17. ' During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Mr. M.L. Shahani that by way of this Constitutional petition the petitioners have also assailed the order of 3rd Sindh Labour Court, Karachi dated 8-4-1992 as the same could not be assailed by the petitioners before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal because the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal at the relevant time was presided over by Mr. Justice (R.) Agha Ali Haider who in his capacity as Chairman had made the 5th Wage Board Award. It was further submitted that the petitioners before the 3rd Sindh Labour Court had also objected to the validity of the Award of the 5th Wage Board to the extent that placing the newspaper of the petitioners namely. "AMAN" as a category A' newspaper was not legal and the same was challenged by All Pakistan Newspapers Society by way of proceedings pending before the Supreme Court. However, nothing was produced before the 3rd Sindh Labour Court to establish that appropriate proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court for a declaration that the newspaper of the petitioners was not to be placed in category 'A'. Furthermore, from perusal of the order of the 3rd Sindh Labour Court, it transpires that it had passed a conditional order allowing the back-benefits to the aggrieved workers as per salaries and directing the same to be deposited. It further ordered that the said amount was to be paid to the workers if the petitioners failed to obtain a declaration from the Supreme Court for change of categorisation of its newspaper from category ' A' to any other category. Nothing was stated With regard to the fate of the alleged proceedings pending in the Supreme Court and whether the amounts of back- benefit were deposited in the 3rd Sindh Labour Court and if deposited whether they are still lying there or had been drawn by the aggrieved workers who were parties in grievance petitions/applications Nos.316/91 to 326/91. On this ground also, this constitutional Petition does not merit consideration.
18. For the foregoing reasons and upon the above discussion, we find that this Constitutional Petition is neither maintainable nor requires consideration. It is accordingly dismissed.