1. BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---This is a review petition which has been filed in respect of a judgment of this Court whereby Civil Appeal No,57 of 1998 jointly filed by the Muslim Commercial Bank Employees Union as well as the Employees Unions of Allied Bank Limited, Habib Bank Limited, National Bank of Pakistan and United Bank Limited was accepted, the order by which the writ petition filed by the aforementioned Unions had been dismissed in limine was vacated and the writ petition was admitted to regular hearing. As a consequence the case was remanded to the High Court. The present review petition has been filed by the management of Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, two of the respondents in the civil appeal mentioned above.
2. Certain facilities previously enjoyed by the office-bearers of the Employees' Unions were taken away by adding section 27-B to Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962. The Employees' Unions filed a writ petition to challenge the validity of the newly-added section. Various grounds were raised to challenge the validity of section 27-B but the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court repelled each one of them. One of these grounds was that section 27-B was not a part of the statute book of Azad Jammu and Kashmir as it was purportedly added to the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, as adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, through the process of automatic legislation which was unconstitutional. This is a process in which it was laid down that all future amendments carried out in Pakistan shall stand automatically adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The process of automatic legislation was upheld by the High Court in light of a previous judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court in which it was held that automatic legislation was valid. The judgment of the Full Bench was delivered in "Spintex Limited and others v. Income-Tax Officer and others"and was announced on 16th September, 1997. After the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the Employees'
3. Unions this Court set aside the judgment of the Full Bench on 20th May 1998 by holding that the process of automatic legislation was unconstitutional. However, meanwhile the High Court had already dismissed the writ petition out of which Civil Appeal No,57 of 1998 had arisen in light of the judgment of the Full. Bench. Following the dictum in Spintex case the appeal filed by Employees'
4. Unions, Appeal No,57 of 1998, was accepted by this Court by holding that the judgment of the High Court was based on a judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court which had been meanwhile vacated. However, the case was not decided by this Court itself in view of the fact that the writ petition in the High Court had been dismissed in limine. As said earlier, the writ petition was admitted to regular hearing and was remanded to the High Court. This judgment was announced on 14th October, 1998.
5. When the management of the Muslim Commercial Bank, filed the present review petition it was urged that the judgment of 14th October, 1998 may be amended so as to direct the High Court to confine its judgment in the writ petition filed by the Employees' Union only to two questions indicated in the review petition. Those points have not been pressed during the hearing of the review petition. An altogether new point has been argued on behalf of the petitioners to which we may now advert.
6. After the judgment of this Court in Spintex case declaring the process of automatic legislation as unconstitutional, a large number of laws which had been enforced in Azad Jammu and Kashmir through the process of automatic legislation became invalid. To meet the situation, the Azad Jummu and Kashmir Council has enacted a law called the "Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council (Adaptation and Validation) Act, 1998" to accord validation to as many as thirty-seven amending laws enforced in Azad Jammu and Kashmir through the process of automatic legislation which were hit by the dictum of this Court in Spintex case. The Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 is one of such laws. The Act lays down that, notwithstanding anything in any judgment etc. of any Court, amendments made in the laws specified in the Act shall be deemed to have been validly made.
7. The validation has been given retrospective effect. One of the laws mentioned in the Act is the Banking Companies Ordinance. The object which has been purportedly achieved is that section 27-B, challenged by the Employees' Union, has been validated from the date of its inception.
8. Mr. Atta-ur-Rehman Shaikh, the learned counsel for Muslim Commercial Bank, placed reliance on the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council (Adaptation and Validation) Act, 1998 to contend that the legislature has validated the amending laws by which section 27-B was added to the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, as applicable in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, with retrospective effect with the result that section 27-B, pr( challenged by the Employees Unions, has become a valid piece of legislation with retrospective effect. It was submitted by the learned counsel that Court has upheld the validity of similar validation laws at previous occasions with the result that validation of laws with retrospective effect is unexceptionable. On the basis of this promise, Mr Atta-ur-Rehman Shaikh submitted that after the coming into force of the validation law mentioned above, the judgment of this Court sought to be reviewed was no longer remained operative, It was prayed by him that the judgment should be reviewed in order to meet the changed legal situation.
9. It was pleaded by him that the High Court had repelled all objections raised on behalf of the Employees' Unions in respect of section 27-B and there was nothing left to be decided by the High Court. For that reason he submitted that the exercise before the High Court was now futile in the changed circumstances. The learned counsel referred us to Chairman, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council, through Secretary, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council, Islamabad and 2 others v. Raja Nisar Ahmad (1995 CLC 1958) and Chairman, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council v. Abdul Latif and others (1997 M LD 2926) in which this Court suo motu took notice of validation laws which had been enforced during pendency of the appeal and the cases were decided in light of the validated laws.
10. The learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 5, Raja Muhammad Hand Khan, appeared at the preliminary hearing and opposed submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
11. It is well-settled practice of this Court that it does not allow a petitioner to argue a point which has not been included in a review petition. We have already noted that the validation law, namely, Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Adaptation and Validation) Act, 1998 came into force when the present review petition had already been filed in this Court. Therefore, the points now urged by the learned counsel do not find any mention in the review petition. These points cannot be decided by this Court in pursuance of the settled practice mentioned above which admits of no exception.
12. So far as the two cases on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, namely, Raja Nisar Ahmad's case and Abdul Latif's case the distinguishing feature is that the laws mentioned in those cases were enforced during' pendency of appeal while it is not so in the present case. Therefore, the principles laid down in the aforementioned cases are not applicable to the present case.
13. Even otherwise we are of the view that the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioners during the preliminary hearing of the review petition do not fall within the parameters of review jurisdiction which is exercisable by this Court under section 42-D read with Order XLVII, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules as the reasons advanced on behalf of the petitioners do not fall within the ambit of mistake/error apparent on the face of the record or "any sufficient reason".
14. No case for admission being made out, this review petition is dismissed in limine.