Labour secy told to clarify minister’s position on distribution of Rs560m

The Sindh High Court has issued a notice to the secretary labour to appear in person and make a clear statement about the labour minister’s announcement with regard to the distribution of Rs560 million amongst the Baldia factory fire victims’ families.

The notices were issued on a petition of Mohammad Tariq and others, family members of Baldia factory fire victims who moved the court against the non-payment of monetary compensation in light of SHC orders.

The petitioner’s counsel Usman Farooq submitted that the SHC had ordered the payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the victims. The compensation was provided by the federal and provincial governments and the social welfare department.

At least 259 employees of Ali Enterprise, a garments factory in Baldia Town, were burnt alive by activists of the Muttahida Quami Movement after the owners of the factory refused to pay Rs200 million as extortion in September 2012.

The counsel submitted that the provincial law officer did not file comments with regard to the statement of labour minister Syed Nasir Hussain Shah on May 1 on the distribution of Rs560 million amongst the legal heirs of the victims.

A division bench headed by Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar observed that the provincial law officer was directed to file comments, but the comments were not filed.

The deputy secretary labour, who appeared before the court, expressed his ignorance about the statement of the labour minister.

The court took exception to the conduct of the deputy secretary labour and observed that despite the court direction no statement had been filed about the distribution of compensation amounts as announced by the minister of the labour while addressing a gathering of a meeting.

The court issued a notice to the secretary labour department to appear in person along with proper comments with regard to the distribution of compensation amounts, failing which court would issue a notice to labour minister Syed Nasir Hussain Shah to explain his position as to whether the statement was issued by him or not.

The court directed the provincial law officer to file his explanation as to why the comments were not filed despite the court directions and adjourned the hearing till February 14.

ECP put on notice

The Supreme Court issued notices to the Election Commission of Pakistan and others on a petition against the delimitations of national and provincial assemblies’ constituencies in Sindh.

Petitioners Ehsan Rehan Mazari, Abdul Rauf Khoso and others had criticised an SHC order that dismissed the petitions challenging the allocation of national and provincial assemblies’ seats in Kashmore, Jacobabad and Shikarpur districts by the Election Commission of Pakistan.

Petitioners Ehsan Rehan Mazari, Haji Abdul Rauf Khoso and others had challenged the delimitation of constituencies for NA-196, NA-197, NA- 198 and NA-199 of Jacobabad, Kashmore and Shikarpur and the allocation of seats criteria by the ECP.

They submitted that the population of Kashmore and Jacobabad would be affected due to the impugned delimitations as the population criterion was not considered while drawing up the delimitation of National Assembly constituencies in Jacobabad, Kashmore and Shikrapur.

They also challenged the first proviso attached to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule (8) of the Elections Rules, 2017 which provides that fraction of more than 0.5 may be counted as one seat and fraction of less than 0.5 may be ignored. Their counsel Rafiq Kalwar argued that the impugned proviso is inconsistent with Sections 19 (1) and 20 (3) of the Elections Act, 2017 and the ECP acted beyond the compass and radius of Sections 19 (1) and Section 20 (3) of the Election Act, 2017 which only permits variation up to 10 per cent plus-minus whereas the impugned proviso allows variation to higher limit.

It was further contended that the ECP has allowed excess variation of 28 per cent of population in district Jacobabad and 39 per cent excess variation in District Kashmore which is higher than the permissible limit of 10 per cent as provided section 20 (3) of the Elections Act, 2017.

He further said that it is a well-settled principle of law that rules cannot go beyond the act. He submitted that rules cannot create new rights or subjugate the rights created under the parent statute, therefore, the impugned proviso is inconsistent with parent statute adding that the debasement of vote is caused when the weight of the vote is diminished.

He said that the ECP had radically disturbed the concept of uniformity of population by creating such irrational disparity and has made it difficult to conduct elections in an honest, just and fair manner; on the contrary, it amounts to committing gerrymandering.

It is pertinent to mention that the SHC had dismissed the petition with the observation that the ECP in order to decide the population criterion had evolved a formula with the variation of 10 per cent plus-minus, but at the same time, a criteria or modality was also required to deal with the quota and benchmark of seat allocation to particular area/districts.

The court observed that the proviso under challenge only brings to life and comprehends a distinction that fraction of more than 0.5 may be counted as one seat which does not in any way disregard or transgress the provisions of the act.

The court observed that neither the proviso seems to ultra vires the provisions of Elections Act 2017 nor it looks like that the rule making authority inserted the proviso with mala fide intention nor the realm of the proviso seems to have travelled beyond the provisions of Elections Act 2017 or in conflict with or in derogation, but it is only a practical solution to first determine population under a workable formula, then allocate seats, which has been applied by the ECP across the board, and dismissed the petitions.