This application filed under Sections 3 & 4 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, arises out of constitutional jurisdiction exercised by this Court in Writ Petition No.6536/2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.05.2018 in manner and mode as suggested by the learned counsel representing the petitioner , in the following manner: "The request of learned counsel for petitioner is reasonable. Respondent No.4, Head HR, NRSP Micro Finance Bank Limited, Bahawalpur is directed to decide the petitioner 's application, if pending disposal with him, within 15 days after receipt of certified copy of this order strictly in accordance with law through a well reasoned speaking order after allowing opportunity of hearing to petitioner and all concerned persons under intimation to Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court."
2. Perusal of order/letter dated 21.05.2018, annexed with this petition as Annexure 'C', reveals that after issuing aforesaid direction, the petitioner was heard in person on 17.05.2018 in respect of his grievance, which in itself is sufficient compliance of this Court' s order . Besides, the averments made in this contempt application do not cover Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. Even otherwise, the petitioner has tried to challenge the validity of the said order-letter . Suffice it to observe that this forum is not to explain the legitimacy or otherwise of the said order in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported as Chief Executive, Multan Electric Power Company (MEPCO), Multan and others VS Messrs Colony Textile Mills LTD and others (2012 SCMR 906 ), wherein it was held as under:- "08. Once a finding has been handed down by the Committee, it would not be for us to comment upon that as this Court by no stretch of imagination can sit in judgment over the said finding as a Court of appeal. It was in view of this essential aspect of the case that this Court while disposing of Criminal Original Petition No.82 of 2009 observed that petitioners may avail remedy , if so desired, before the compete nt forum in view of the finding submitted by the Committee."
3. In view of the above this petition is devoid of force hence dismissed . However , the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy before the appropriate forum against the decision taken by the authority in accordance with law .