1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---Judgments of Sindh and Lahore High Courts are against the petitioner on the question relating to conveyance and shift allowance. He accordingly does not press this petition in that behalf. On the question of house rent he stated that a Bench of this Court after hearing on 23-6-1982 dismissed several petitions of the respondent on the question of house rent. However, the dismissal was by a short order and before a detailed judgment could be rendered that matter was ordered to be reheard. Accordingly, he has argued that on account of said dismissal of respondent's petitions for leave to appeal on the same question the petitioner (the other side) has thus good case for further examination on this question; namely, house rent.
2. The afore-mentioned cases are also fixed for today. Leave is being granted in those cases after rehearing. We, accordingly, grant leave to appeal in this case also.
3. Security Rs. 5,000. civil Petition No 877 of 1985 PUNJAB EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION---Petitioner versus THE JUTE MILLS LIMITED, MUZAFFARGARH---Respondent This is a petition by the Social Security Institution and the position herein is reverse to that in Civil Petition No. 496 of 1990. The question to be resolved herein also relates to the house rent.
4. Accordingly it is a fit case for further examination. Leave to appeal is granted in this case also.
5. Civil Petitions Nos, 225 to 229 and 237 to 241 of 1982 (On appeal from the order dated 17-1-1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in F,A.Os. Nos. 273, 275, 282, 276, 280, 284, 283, 278 and 279 of 1978).
6. Iftikhar Ahmad Dar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
7. Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
8. Reference has already been made to these petitions. They were heard on 23-6-1982 and were dismissed by a short order. Before rendering the detailed judgment the learned Judges who had passed the short order passed another order directing their rehearing. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that the short order having been passed it will have force of a judgment of this Court and will have effect accordingly. The objection in so far as it goes, prima facie, may have some force in different context and other circumstances; but, in the present ease the short order passed on 23-6-1982, it seems was recalled by the learned Judges who passed it and that is why they directed rehearing of these petitions. Be that as it may, honourable Judges of that Bench having retired, we suo motu review and recall the order passed on 23-6-1982.
9. This is in addition to the aforementioned order whereby these petitions were ordered to be reheard.
10. Accordingly on this rehearing and review, in these petitions, for the aforestated reasons regarding house rent, we consider fit to grant leave to appeal. Order accordingly.
11. Civil Petition No. 291 of 1982 (On appeal from the order dated 17-1-1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in FA.O. 281 of 1978). .
12. Lyallpur Cotton Mills versus Punjab Employees Social Security Institution, Lahore Javaid Altaf, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate-on---Record for Petitioner.
13. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent..
14. This petition was earlier heard by a Bench of this Court on 23-6-1982. It was converted into appeal and allowed. Later on this short order was recalled before a detailed judgment could be rendered and the matter was ordered to be reheard.
15. Learned counsel for the caveator has first sought adjournment on account of unavoidable circumstances due to which the learned senior counsel has not been able to attend the Court today in this case and other connected cases. In view of the order proposed to be passed in this case and other connected cases we do not consider necessary to adjourn the case nor it would be necessary to finally dispose of the matter today.
16. If it was a fit case for conversion into appeal by another Bench of this Court at an earlier stage, we consider this by itself as enough ground for giving the same relief to the petitioner. In so far as the acceptance or otherwise of the appeal is concerned, it is left open and would be taken up together with other appeals. This finds support from another fact also that Civil Appeals Nos. 216 of 1985, 217 of 1985, 221-K of 1986 and 222-K of 1986 are already pending wherein the questions for examination are similar as are in this case. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted in the present petition also.
17. Security Rs. 5,000.
18. Civil Appeals Nos, 216. 217 of 1985and 221-K and 222-K of 1986 These appeals were ordered to be heard with the abovementioned cases.
19. On account of misunderstanding some of them were delinked from each other by the office. The directions for their hearing together are restored. Accordingly, these appeals shall be heard with the appeals arising out of the matters dealt with above.
20. Civil Appeal No 97 of 1978 (On appeal from the judgment dated 29-9-1976 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 259 of 1976).
21. Appellant in person.
22. Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent No.1.
23. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3: Ex parte.
24. In this appeal the appellant has appeared in person and has complained that the case has been fixed several times and could not be heard on account of its having been tagged with several other cases which were adjourned time and again for one or the other reason. He also stated that the subject-matter of this appeal is not entirely the same as is involved in the aforementioned all cases. He also pointed out that the Social Security Institution is not even a party in this case.
25. The difficulties faced by the appellant so far cannot be ignored. He is keen that if not earlier his appeal should now be heard and disposed of at Lahore because he cannot afford the expenses of his counsel. This depends upon the next question to be resolved: whether, the decision of this case will have effect on the decision in the other cases mentioned above.
26. After hearing him and after examining the question involved in this -appeal and the other matters we do not agree with the appellant that the decision in this case will have absolutely no effect on the decision of the other aforementioned cases and vice versa. Accordingly, while permitting him not to bring his counsel to Rawalpindi if he so chooses, as he is literate intelligent enough to present his case personally, we direct that this appeal shall continue to be fixed with the afore- mentioned cases and shall be heard with them.
27. All the above matters (appeal numbers shall be allotted-to the cases in which leave to appeal has been granted today including those which have been converted into appeal, as soon as possible) would be treated as one matter for the purpose of hearing together.
28. The appeals shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all those documents which shall be necessary for disposal thereof.
29. These appeals shall be fixed before a larger Bench. The office shall obtain orders in that behalf in due course. They shall be fixed for hearing within this year preferably during vacations, if not earlier.