' IMAM BUX BALOCH, J.--- Through this Civil Revision Application, the applicants have challenged the judgment dated 30-1-2009 passed by learned Trial Court and judgment dated 10-11-2010 passed by the Appellate Court i,e, III-Additional District Judge, Karachi West.
2. The brief facts of the controversy . Are that respondent was inducted as Deck Cadet in the year 1976 and after completion of the requisite training he served on the Board. After promulgation of Pakistan National Shipping Corporation Ordinance XX of 1979, the National Shipping Corporation of Pakistan was merged into PNSC and hence the respondent became its employee. On 17-1-2002 the respondent who was serving as Senior Chief Officer resigned from his service and the same was accepted w,e,f, 21-1-2002 vide letter dated 31-1-2002. According to respondent he was not paid any payment till 20-5-2005 and on 10-7-2002 part payment was made towards his provident fund due.
Nevertheless, respondent made an application to Wafaqi Motesib for payment of alleged balance due which complaint was withdrawn in view of the assurance made by the Secretary of the applicant. An amount of Rs,234,824.29 was paid on 19-9-2002 after audit of fiscal year 2001 which was completed on 11-9-2002. It is further alleged, that on 11-3-2003 a final payment to the tune of Rs,139,686.03 was made but the respondent claimed another amount of Rs,1,09,333.30 and therefore, he made an application to the Chairman of the Corporation, which application was disallowed. Again the respondent filed an application before Federal Services Tribunal at Karachi, which was abated w,e,f, 7-6-2006. Thereafter the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs,173,320.80. Thereafter the suit was proceeded and the following issues were framed:- ISSUES
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable under the law?
(2) Whether the Plaintiff's Provident Fund dues have been paid in accordance with PNSC Employee's Contributory Provident Fund Regulation or not?
(3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed?
(4) What should the Decree be?
3. After advancing evidence and hearing the parties the learned Trial Court has decreed the suit of the Respondent/Plaintiff to the tune of Rs,1,09,333.30 with mark up/compensation at the rate of 14% per annum w,e,f, April, 2004 till the realization of amount. Such decree was prepared on 30-1-2009.
The applicants have challenged such judgment and decree and learned III-Additional District Judge, Karachi West after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal of the applicant and maintained the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the learned two Courts below have not touched upon the Issue No,2 and contended that according to Regulation 17 of the Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (Contributory Provident Fund)
Regulations, 1979, the respondent is not entitled for 14% mark up. He contended that according to Rule 23, the decision of the Administrators is final. He further contended that both the Courts below have not considered the ingredients of Regulations 17 and 23 of the Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (Contributory Provident Fund) Regulations, 1979. He further contended that judgments and decrees of both the Courts below may be set aside and the case may be remanded to the Trial Court for further decision. He further contended that this Court has jurisdiction to displace concurrent findings of facts of two courts below. He further contended that the appeal decided, without reference to pleadings of the parties, issues, evidence on record and decision of trial Court, may be set aside. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the following case-law:--
(i) Muhammad Adam v. Noor Muhammad (1973 SCMR 606).
(ii) Bharoo and 2 others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and 2 others (1999 SCMR 786).
(iii) Falak Sher v. Muhammad Mumtaz and 2 others (1992 MLD 1879).
(iv) Abdul Qayyu m v. Muhammad Rafique (2001 SCMR 1651).
(v) Muhammad Shahid Javed v. Abdul Rahim and 4 others (2008 YLR 126).
(vi) K. C. Mamoo v. Mrs. Badrunnisa (1985 CLC 332).
5. On the other hand the respondent appeared in person and submitted that he moved an application to the applicant on 26-3-2003 that his outstanding is of Rs,1, 09,333.30 may be paid to him as considerable delay has been caused by them. He further contended that his claim was not denied by the applicant and the calculation made is according to Regulations 14 and 17 of the Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (Contributory Provident Fund) Regulations, 1979. He further contended that two Courts below have discussed 'each and every aspect of the case and their judgments and decrees are well reasoned and could not be disturbed under the Revisional jurisdiction of this Court, which is limited. He further contended that the applicants have failed to point out any flaw or irregularity or non-reading of evidence. He has placed his reliance on the case-law:--
(i) Alamgir Khan through L.Rs and others v. Haji Abdul Sittar Khan and others (2009 SCMR 54).
(ii) Abdul Aziz v. Sheikh Fateh Muhammad (2007 SCMR 336).
(iii) Abdul Mateen and others v. Mst. Mustakhia (2006 SCMR 50).
(iv) Muhammad Feroze and others v. Muhammad Jamaat Ali (2006 SCMR 1304).
(v) Abdul Rahim and another v. Mrs. Jannatay Bibi and 13 others (2000 SCMR 346).
6. I have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar and I have also examined the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below and I have also gone through the evidence available on record. Regulation 14 of the Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (Contributory Provident Fund) Regulations, 1979, reads as under:--
14. Interest:
(1) The Administrators shall credit interest on the amount standing to each subscriber's credit at a rate which shall be fixed by them at the end of each year on the basis of the earnings of the Fund during that year.
(2) Interest shall not be credited to the account of a subscriber if he informs the Administrators that he does not wish to receive interest; but if he subsequently asks for interest, it shall be credited with effect from the first day of the year in which he asks for it.
(3) Where any interest has been credited to the account of a subscriber before he informs the Administrators as aforesaid, such interest shall stand so credited unless the subscriber informs the Administrators that he does not wish to receive such interest either.
(4) If a subscriber leaves the service of the Corporation during a year, the. Administrators shall credit interest to his account at a rate to be fixed by them on the basis of the earnings of the Fund from the date of the last closing of accounts of the Fund to the date when the subscriber ceases to be an employee of the Corporation.
7. According to Regulation 14 if a subscriber leaves service of the Corporation during a year, the Administrators shall credit interest to his account at a rate to be fixed by them on the basis of the earnings of the Fund from the date of the last closing of accounts of the Fund to the date when the subscriber ceases to be an employee of the Corporation. Admittedly the respondent was retired from service of the applicants on 21-1-2002 and on 10-7-2002 he was paid Rs,900,504.99 through cheque towards part payment of the provident fund dues and on 11-9-2002 he was paid Rs,234,824.29 towards Provident Fund and on 11-3-2003 Rs,139,686.03 were paid towards dues of Provident Fund. According to Regulation 14, the applicants shall pay the interest to the subscriber.
The applicants have examined Syed Wahid Ali Rizvi Secretary Provident Fund in PNSC who admitted in cross-examination that as per Rules of Provident Fund Scheme of PNSC an employee is entitled for interest. He also admitted that respondent was member of Provident Fund Scheme maintained by the PNSC during the period of his employment and he also admitted that payment was held as there was some misappropriation made by previous administration in the Provident Fund account and records were handed over to the FIA for investigation, therefore, the payment was delayed. The applicants witness Syed Wahid Ali Rizvi has admitted that respondent was a beneficiary of Provident Fund during his employment and he also admitted that according to Regulations of the PNSC, the respondent was entitled for interest of his Provident Fund. He also admitted that the Provident Fund was paid to the respondent with delay which was caused on the part of the applicants.
8. From reading of the judgments of the Courts below I found no misreading or non-reading of evidence. It is incumbent upon the applicants to make out a case for exercise of Revisional jurisdiction of this Court within four corners of provisions and clauses (a), (b) and (c) of subsection
(1) of section 115 of C.P.C. Section 115, C.P.C. Reads as under:--
115. Revision (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears---
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed tobercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit].
[Provided that, where a person makes an application under this subsection, he shall, in support of such application, furnish copies of the pleadings, documents and order of the subordinate Court and the High Court shall, except for reasons to be recorded dispose of such application without calling for the record of the subordinate Court.] [Provided further that such application shall be made within ninety days of the decision of the subordinate Court "which shall provide a copy of such decision within three days thereof and the High Court shall dispose of such application within six months."] [(2) The District Court may exercise the powers conferred on the High Court by subsection (1) in respect of any case decided by a Court subordinate to such District Court in which no appeal lies and the amount or value of the subject matter whereof does not exceed the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court.
(3) If any application under subsection (1) in respect of a case within the competence of the District Court has been made either to the High Court or the District Court, no further such application shall be made to either of them.
(4) No proceedings in revision shall be entertained by the High Court against an order made under subsection (2), by the District Court.]
9. Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is primarily intended to correct errors made by subordinate Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction. Erroneous decisions of facts are not ordinarily revisable except when the decision is based on no evidence, inadmissible evidence or perverse so as to cause grave injustice and in Revisional jurisdiction Court can interfere with findings of Courts below only if such Courts exercise their jurisdiction illegally and in breach of some provision of law or some material irregularity. There is no cavil with the proposition that the concurrent findings on a question of fact or mixed question of law and facts, if is found suffering from misreading or non- reading of evidence or based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence, the High Court in exercise of the Revisional jurisdiction should correct the error A committed by the subordinate Courts but in absence of any defect of misreading or non-reading of evidence in the concurrent findings of two Courts on such question, the interference of the High Court in the civil revision would amount to improper exercise of Revisional jurisdiction. This is settled law that re-examination and reappraisal of evidence is not permissible in Revisional jurisdiction even if conclusion drawn by the subordinate Courts on a question of fact was erroneous. The learned counsel for the applicant was unable to point out any irregularity, non-reading or misreading of evidence from the record. The two Courts below have given cogent reasons and in such circumstances this Court is reluctant to exercise Revisional jurisdiction in favour of the applicants. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants is not helpful to the circumstances of the present case.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this Civil Revision Application having no merits and is dismissed as such.