PLC 2025 Judgments

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1058

[Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan]

Before Joher Ali and Jahnazeb Khan, JJ

AMIRUDDIN

Versus

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT GILGIT-BALTISTAN through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Secretariat, Gilgit and 2 others

Writ Petition No.604 of 2022, decided on 17th March, 2023.

Civil service---

----Posts of Primary/Middle School Teacher (BS-14) at Tehsil (Gupis of District Ghizer)---Appointment---Eligibility---Candidate belonging to hard area of Tehsil---Petitioner /candidate filed writ petition contending that he got first position in his Tehsil 'Gupis' ('Tehsil-in-question') after going through the process of written test and interview but the respondents (Education Department) verbally issued directions that he was not eligible for the post being resident of hard area (Moula Abad Gupis) for which no post was available---Validity---Record revealed that the Respondents advertised different posts including the two (2) posts of Primary/Middle School Teacher for tehsil-in-question---After conducting written test, tentative merit list of qualified candidates was issued, wherein the petitioner stood 3rd---During the scrutiny of documents one of the candidates, who was topper of the written test, failed to provide relevant/required documents, hence he was disqualified; resultantly, the petitioner stood second in the written test---Later on, the petitioner had been verbally disqualified by the respondents on the pretext that the petitioner was resident of hard area (Moula Abad, Gupis)---Record (provided before the Chief Court by the respondents) revealed that as per the recommendations two candidates qualified for the posts of Primary/Middle School Teacher, wherein the petitioner had topped the merit list by securing highest marks in the final merit list---Since the petitioner was the topper at Tehsil level and had remained distinguished throughout the selection process and no vacancy was available in his area (hard area) for employment, therefore, being topper the petitioner had substantial right and was entitled for adjustment/employment against the available vacant post of SPS (Special Pay Scale) Primary/Middle School Teacher BS-14 in Tehsil Gupis---Petitioner / candidate must be given an opportunity to serve the Department of Education---Chief Court directed the respondents to adjust the petitioner as Primary School Teacher (BS-14) against the vacant post---Writ petition, filed by candidate, was allowed, in circumstances.

Imtiaz Hussain for Petitioner.

Abdul Karim, D.A.G. Advocated General, assisted by Tufail Ahmed LA for Respondents.

Rahman Shah Secretary Education in person.

Faizullah Loan, Director Education in person.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1065

[Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan]

Before Ali Baig, CJ and Jahanzeb Khan, J

SAMINAH SULAIMAN

Versus

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT GILGIT-BALTISTAN, through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan Secretariat Gilgit and 7 others

Writ Petition No.419 of 2022, decided on 20th March, 2024.

Civil service---

----School teachers---Appointment---Criteria (terms and conditions) mentioned in the advertisement, violation of---Effect---Record revealed that the Official Respondents had advertised some posts of Elementary School Teachers BS-14 Education Department GB for Union Council Nagar-I---The whole procedure of test/interview and selection had been completed---Admittedly, the Official Respondents had violated the terms and conditions of the advertisement during the process of induction as criteria for selection of candidates as given in relevant para of the advertisement showed that 70% marks from written test, 15% marks from the academics and 15% marks from the interview were to be counted/calculated for final selection of the candidate--- But, interestingly and astonishingly, the Official Respondents had taken into consideration only one condition of the said criteria, i.e. 70% marks from the written test, whereas, the remaining two condition(s), i.e. 15% for academic and interview, each had not been taken into consideration---Said act of the Official Respondents was utter and sheer violation of terms and conditions/rules of the advertisement, which tantamount to the infringement of fundamental rights of the petitioner---Undeniably, the petitioner had got second position by securing 41.95% and the private respondent (candidate) had got 3rd position by securing 40.85%---Private respondent had been appointed by the Official Respondents for reasons better known to them by bulldozing the fundamental right of the petitioner---Chief Court directed the Official Respondents to re- examine (consider) the case of the petitioner while the appointment of private respondent would remain intact---Writ petition was allowed accordingly.

Mazhar Hussain for Petitioner.

Malik Sherbaz Khan Addl. A.G. for Respondents.

2025 P L C 26

[Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees]

Before Shahid Mehmood Khokhar, Chairman

MUHAMMAD ISHAQ

Versus

DAILY KHABRAIN, LAHORE

Case No.IT/P/1985/19/C, decided on 7th May, 2024.

Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees (Procedure and Function) Rules, 1977---

----R. 16(1)(2)---Petition for recovery of dues from the employer /Management, filing of---Limitation---Sufficient cause / reason, absence of---Effect---Petition was filed before the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees after six years and seven months of termination of employee---Submission of the petitioner that 7th Wage Board Award was challenged before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by a representative body of owners of newspapers (APNS), therefore, he had filed present petition after pronouncement of judgment dismissing case filed by APNS---Record revealed that the petitioner had not filed the present petition (for recovery of dues) soon after pronouncement of said judgment---Since, the petitioner had failed to establish or show bona fide in having any cause of action in filing of petition even after pronouncement of said judgment, therefore, Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees did not find any plausible cause in the present petition to proceed further in the matter---Thus, present petition had no merits being barred by time---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2019 PLC (C.S.) 541 ref.

Petitioner in person along with his authorized representative Deen Muhammad Dard.

2025 P L C 51

[Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees]

Before Shahid Mehmood Khokhar, Chairman

Syed NAEEMUDDIN

Versus

INCL (JANG GROUP OF COMPANIES), KARACHI

Case No.IT/S/8WBA/150/23/C, decided on 30th January, 2024.

Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act (LVIII of 1973)---

----S.2(d)---Petition for recovery of gratuity etc. filed by former Group Director (Project) of newspaper establishment---'Newspaper employee', definition of---Scope---Monetary benefits (gratuity etc.), entitlement to Group Director (Projects) as a newspaper employee---Scope---Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees---Jurisdiction---Plea of the petitioner (who resigned as Group Director (Project) of respondents/ management) was that he had worked with the respondents/ establishment continuously for more than 05 years, thus he was entitled for gratuity for the said period---Validity---It is crystal clear from definition of the 'newspaper employee', as mentioned in S.2(d) of Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, that nomenclature of the petitioner (Group Director Projects)can not be termed as "newspaper employee" as the said category (Group Director ) has nothing to do with printing or publication of newspaper---Nature of job of Group Director (Projects) is all together different from the nature of job of the employees defined in the S. 2(d) of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973---Thus, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner or his nomenclature can be brought within the preview of the newspaper employee---Therefore, the petitioner could not be termed as a 'newspaper employee and thus could not bring any lis before the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees---Legislature in its wisdom has defined both the categories i.e. a whole time journalist and a whole time non-journalist and thus, the categories related with the printing and publication of newspaper are exhaustively defined in the definition of 'newspaper employee 'and the employees working as Group Director (Projects) in any newspaper establishment are not covered under the said scheme of law---Petition , being devoid of merits and not maintainable, was dismissed in limine.

Ghulam Mustafa Butt Authorized Representative for Petitioner.

2025 P L C 58

[Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees]

Before Shahid Mehmood Khokhar, Chairman

WAJID ALI

Versus

DAILY JANG, LAHORE

Case No.IT/P/1916/19/C, decided on 16th May, 2024.

Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act (LVIII of 1973)---

----S.13---Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012), S.2(xxxiii)---Persons employed by contractors of a company, grievance of ---Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees---Jurisdiction---"Worker" and "Workman"---"Employed by the company"---Scope---Words "employed by the company " are wide enough to include workmen employed by the contractors of the company---Employees of the contractor shall be the employees of the company, if the contractor engaged the workers for running of the affairs of the company and not for some other independent work, which has no concern with the production of the company, which constituted one of the principal organs of the company; the machines belong to the company; the raw material is supplied by the company; and the said department is controlled by the supervisors of the company; the employees of the contractor shall be the employees of the company; the employees engaged directly or through a contractor would be deemed to be the employees of the company for whose benefits they perform functions---Even though control test is an important test, it is not the sole test; a multiple pragmatic approach weighing up all the factors for and against the employment has to be adopted, including an "integration" test; and if the contract is found to be not genuine and a device to deprive the employees from their legitimate rights / benefits, the so-called contract employees will have to be treated as employees of the company---Such employees would not be estopped to file a grievance petition---Pertinently, it has become a practice on part of the employers to frustrate not only the provisions of prevalent law but also to deny the fundamental rights of life, trade, service and family of employees by adopting deceptive measures in order to deprive its employees from their legitimate rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, and outsourcing of service is just an example---Courts cannot close their eyes but can lift corporate veil for purposes of ascertaining real motive behind a scheme---Correct approach for sanctioning of a scheme is that the same should not be scrutinized in the way of a carping critic, a hairsplitting expert, a meticulous accountant or a fastidious counsel, each trying to find out from his professional point of view what loopholes are present in such a scheme---Petitioner produced documents like original bank statement, issued by concerned Bank showing that salary of the petitioner was credited by the respondent / establishment from various accounts reflecting that he was working in the establishment of respondent / establishment and was rendering services to the respondent / establishment in its premises---In said regard, relationship of petitioner and respondent (establishment/ organization) was established in the light of the definition of "worker" and "workman" as prescribed under S. 2(xxxiii) of Industrial Relations Act, 2012, which is applicable to Newspaper Employees---Thus, Respondent / establishment could not be allowed to wriggle out from discharge of its liability under the law---Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees held the petitioner entitled to gratuity @ Rs.15,000 x 6 = Rs. 90,000/- as his last pay drawn was Rs. 15,000/- per month---Respondent was directed to pay Rs. 90,000/- as gratuity within thirty days---Petition , filed by former newspaper employee was allowed accordingly.

Abdul Ghafoor and others v. The President, National Bank of Pakistan 2018 SCMR 157; Muhammad Akram v. Umer Hayat and 2 others 2001 PLC 124 and PLD 2019 SC 250 ref.

Rana Ijaz Ahmed for Petitioner.

Mahmood Ali for Respondent.

2025 P L C 100

[Islamabad High Court]

Before Babar Sattar, J

TOPS FOODS AND BEVERAGES through General Manager and another

Versus

RIZWAN ALI and others

Writ Petition No.86 of 2021, decided on 31st October, 2024.

Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)---

----Ss.33 & 2(xxxiii)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 10-A & 199---Driver---Allegation of misconduct---Proper inquiry---Penalty of dismissal from service---Legal/procedural requirements in disciplinary proceedings undertaken by a private employer---Scope---Principle of natural justice---Due process of law---Plea of the respondent/employee was that after culmination of inquiry he was not issued final show cause notice before passing the penalty order and the said order had been passed by an incompetent authority during the pendency of matter before the NIRC in violation of an injunctive order---Validity---Respondent was served with the charge sheet, afforded the opportunity to present his defense before the inquiry officer and the opportunity to participate in proceedings before the inquiry officer during which proceedings testimonies were recorded and respondent was afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, thus, complete opportunity was provided to respondent to defend himself---Neither the Single Bench nor the Full Bench of NIRC had recorded any reasons supporting the finding that principle of natural justice was breached during the course of proceedings---Disciplinary proceedings undertaken by a private employer against an employee could not be confused with trial in a criminal matter and the strict procedural requirements to be followed in a trial or adjudication undertaken by court of law could not be read into requirement of fairness that the law imposed on employers while undertaking disciplinary proceedings against employees---Requirement of issuing a show cause notice after inquiry proceedings undertaken by private employer was a requirement imposed by the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, framed under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which could not be read into the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 or the Industrial Relations Act, 2012---There is no requirement in law that where it is proved that an employee is guilty of misconduct, such employee is to be issued an additional show-cause notice to have such findings confirmed by higher authority of the employer competent to issue a dismissal order, where an inquiry has been fairly conducted and proceedings in the inquiry are detailed enough to enable the employer to reach a conclusion---Neither Art. 10-A of the Constitution nor principles of natural justice impose an obligation on a private employer to issue such show-cause notice and grant personal hearing before issuing a dismissal order---Finding of the NIRC that the dismissal order was not duly authorized by the General Manager was neither supported by the evidence produced before NIRC nor was legally sustainable, as the evidence produced before NIRC established that the General Manager of the petitioner company authorized the Manager (HR) to issue the dismissal order---Dismissal order had been issued prior to the issuance of any injunctive order of NIRC on the basis of an inquiry report that had found that respondent was guilty of misconduct, thus, it could not be held that the dismissal order was liable to be set aside for having been passed while an injunctive order passed by the NIRC was in field---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Mustehkum Cement Ltd. v. Abdul Rashid 1998 SCMR 644; Matloob Hassan v. Brooke Bond Pakistan Ltd., Lahore's case 1992 SCMR 227 and Abdul Razzaq v. M/s Ihsan Sons Ltd. and 2 others 1992 SCMR 505 ref.

Mustehkum Cement Ltd. v. Abdul Rashid 1998 SCMR 644 rel.

Umer Abdullah for Petitioners.

2025 P L C 141

[Islamabad High Court]

Before Muhammad Asif, J

Ms. IFFAT NAWAZ

Versus

Messrs THE BANK OF KHYBER through Managing Director and 2 others

Writ Petition No.882 of 2024, decided on 21st April, 2025.

(a) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance (VI of 1968)---

----S.Os. 15(2) & 15(3)(i)---Charge of fraudulent transactions / embezzlement of funds in connivance with co-accused---Lack of direct, evidence of guilt---Admission of commission of offence by the co-accused solely and non-involvement of petitioner---Imposition of harsh penalty of removal from service---Quantum of punishment, determination of---Inquiry Officer found the petitioner to be guilty of negligence---Single Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) partially allowed the grievance petition and converted the penalty of removal from service into demotion of one step below, but the Full Bench of NIRC set aside the order of Single Bench of NIRC---Validity---Petitioner was neither directly responsible nor had committed any gross misconduct or negligence in respect of the allegations, whereas, the allegations and charges in the instant case had been duly accepted through a confessional statement by another employee of the bank against whom a criminal case was also registered---However, such aspect had been totally ignored while awarding the major punishment of removal from service, which, on the face of it, otherwise did not commensurate with the magnitude of the guilt and the role assigned to the petitioner---Neither in the charge sheet nor in the proceedings before the Disciplinary Cases Committee there was any direct charge of misconduct, fraud, embezzlement or even the connivance of petitioner with the co-accused, who had accepted his guilt---Single instance of negligence or neglect of work cannot bring the case within the mischief of 15(3)(i) of Ordinance----Case against the petitioner could not be considered to be one of fraud, forgery, or embezzlement; rather, at the most, it could be considered to be one of negligence---Major penalty awarded to the petitioner, i.e. "removal from service," was harsh and could not be awarded just on the allegation of negligence---Orders passed by the Single Bench and Full Bench of NIRC were set aside and the petitioner was reinstated into service with all back benefits from the date of her removal---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Saifi Development Corporation Ltd. v. Workers Union PLD 1996 Kar. 347; OPAL Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Raheela 1995 PLC 451 and Auditor-General of Pakistan v. Muhammad Ali 2006 SCMR 60 rel.

(b) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance (VI of 1968)---

----S.O. 15(3)(i)---Expression "negligence or neglect act"---Meaning and scope---Words "negligence or neglect of work" in S.O. 15(3)(i) are not used in a disjunctive sense---Firstly, neglect of work is also a kind of negligence and being of a lesser kind would be covered by it, which has a broader meaning---Secondly, it is a well recognized principle of law that to carry out the intention of the Legislature, it is occasionally found necessary to use the conjunction "or" and "and" one for the other---Since the sub-clause in question is penal, it should be construed favourable to the employees---Neglect of work mentioned in this subsection must be of a habitual nature---One single instance of sleeping while on duty cannot be termed as habitual negligence or neglect of work so as to bring it within the mischief of the S.O. 15(3)(i).

Saifi Development Corporation Ltd. v. Workers Union PLD 1996 Kar. 347 rel.

Mirza Muhammad Afzal for Petitioner.

Bilal Ahmed Kakaizai for Respondent.

2025 P L C 176

[Islamabad High Court]

Before Baber Sattar, J

PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD. through Authorized Officer

Versus

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD and 9 others

Writ Petition No. 626 of 2022, decided on 29th April, 2025.

Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)---

----S. 19 (3), (4), (5) & (6)---National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 2016, Regln. 11---Referendum/election for determination of Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA)---Statutory requirements---Scope---Submission of list of members of the trade unions by the employer for the purpose of participation in the referendum in terms of S. 19(4) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, (Act) instead of submitting the same by the contesting trade unions in terms of S. 19(3)---Validity---In order to participate in contest for election as CBA between trade unions, a trade union must throw its hat in the ring in terms of S. 19(3)(a) of the Act---Trade union that desires to be a contestant is required to submit a list of its members together with the details of each member with regard to date of his employment as well as the date of his becoming a member of the trade union in terms of S. 19(3)(b) of the Act---Section 19(4) of the Act creates an obligation for the employer to submit a list of all workmen employed in the establishment, excluding those who have been employed for a period of less than three months---Obligation of the Registrar to prepare a list of voters is encapsulated in S. 19(5) of the Act---Each voter whose name is included in the list is then entitled to vote through secret ballot to elect a CBA---In terms of requirements of S. 19 of the Act read together with the relevant provisions of Ss. 9, 11, 15 and 16 of the Act and Regln. 11 of the NIRC (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 2016, it is obligatory for a trade union seeking to contest the election for a CBA to submit a list of its members, as required under S. 19(3) of the Act and such lists submitted by all contesting trade unions when put together would form the basis for the Registrar to compile a list of voters for purposes of S. 19(5) of the Act with the list of workmen submitted by the employer in terms of S. 19(4) of the Act being a basis for carrying out relevant scrutiny of credentials of the workmen to be undertaken by the Registrar to confirm that the list of voters include only such workmen eligible to be voters in a contest for the election of a CBA in terms of the criteria prescribed in S.19(5) of the Act---High Court found that the manner in which the list submitted by the petitioner in terms of S. 19(4) of the Act declared to be the voters list for purposes of S. 19(5) of the Act through the impugned order was not in accordance with law---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

K.E.S.C Progressive Workers' Union through its Chairman and others v. K.E.S.C Labour Union through its General Secretary and others 1991 SCMR 888; Muhammad Farooque Textile Mills Workers' Union (Regd.) v. The Registrar of Trade Unions, Sindh (East Division) and 2 others 1987 PLC 723; PECO Head Office Staff Union v. The Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore and another PLD 1979 Lah. 820 and Sohaib Shaukat v. Labour Department 2010 PLC 265 distinguished.

Shahid Anwar Bajwa and Abdul Rahman Bajwa along with Asghar Shaheen, Incharge Law, and Zardeel Abbasi, Manager (I.R), Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited for Petitioner.

Usman Ghani Swati for Respondent No.4.

2025 P L C 14

[Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)]

Before Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro and Arbab Ali Hakro, JJ

Messrs PAKISTAN CHEMICAL AND ENERGY SECTOR SKILL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY through Chief Executive Officer

Versus

RAB NAWAZ and others

Constitution Petition No.D-1497 of 2023, decided on 2nd May, 2024.

Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 2015 (XI of 2016)---

----Ss. 2(1)(b) & 16(3)---Re-instatement in service---Petitioner / employer was aggrieved of order passed by Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal reinstating respondents / employees in service as they had been serving as permanent employees in the roles of gardeners, watchmen, cleaners, and sweepers in the establishment of petitioner---Validity---Labour Appellate Tribunal meticulously examined the issues and had rendered affirmative findings after having thoroughly evaluated the evidence presented---Tribunal considered all facets of the case and subsequently delivered an explanatory judgment---High Court did not find any basis for re-evaluating the evidence and upheld the judgment passed by Labour Appellate Tribunal, as there were no traces of illegality, infirmity, or substantial irregularity---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

1992 SCMR 505; 1992 SCMR 227 and PLD 1978 Kar. 649 ref.

Khalid Mehmood v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan et al. 2018 SCMR 376 and The Chairman Agriculture Policy Institute, Ministry of National Food Security and Research, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another v. Zulqarnain Ali and another 2022 SCMR 636 rel.

Muhammad Hamayoun for Petitioner.

Jamshed Ahmed Faiz for Respondents Nos.1 to 17.

Ahmed Ali Shahani, Assistant Advocate General for Respondent No.18.

2025 P L C 30

[Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)]

Before Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro and Arbab Ali Hakro, JJ

GUL MUHAMMAD

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance Department, Islamabad and 3 others

Constitution Petition No.D-1831 of 2019, decided on 23rd May, 2024.

(a) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)---

----S.33---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15---Redressal of individual grievances---Dismissal from service---Petitioner while working as Cashier with the respondent-Bank was dismissed from service for a minor procedural error i.e. incorrectly dating a document, whereafter, he challenged his dismissal through various legal avenues and ultimately reached the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) in view of "Mubeen-us-Salam" case (PLD 2006 SC 602)---Single Bench of NIRC initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, however, the Full Bench of NIRC overturned that decision on account of time barred grievance and failure to serve grievance notice---Validity---Pursuant to Para. 109(c) of the "Mubeen-us-Salam" case (PLD 2006 SC 602), cases or proceedings not safeguarded or encompassed by the judgment were deemed to have abated---Aggrieved party should seek recourse to the competent forums for the redressal of their grievances within a stipulated period of 90 days, and the statutory limitation imposed by the respective laws shall not be operative against them until the expiration of the aforementioned period---Paragraph 109(e) articulated that the Service Tribunal should adjudicate pending cases under S. 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, in light of the preceding observations, however, if any of the cases fall within the purview of clause 'c' (ibid), a grace period of 90 days should be accorded to the aggrieved party to approach the competent forum for the redressal of its grievance, thus, the Federal Service Tribunal abated the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 14.5.2010, advising the petitioner to seek a remedy before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, whereafter, the petitioner filed the Grievance Application before Labour Court, on 15.06.2010, afresh under the provision of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 2002, thereby falling within the stipulated 90-days' period---Hence, the findings of the Full Bench of the N.I.R.C regarding counting the period were erroneous and constituted a misreading of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan---Petitioner erroneously addressed his departmental appeal to the President of the respondent-Bank, however, despite the same being addressed to the President, it was entertained and adjudicated upon on its merits by the Vice President, who did not stated that it was erroneously addressed to the President, thus, the departmental appeal of the petitioner could be construed as a grievance notice---Respondent-bank had not furnished any substantive evidence to suggest that the mistake committed by the petitioner was intentional or premeditated for illicit gains---Such errors in routine work were plausible due to the exigencies of work and for such a minor infraction, the petitioner could not be subjected to the severe penalty of dismissal from service---Respondent bank had not incurred any financial loss---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Mubeen-us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2006 SC 602 and Nadeem Ahmed Qureshi v. Habib Bank Limited 2009 PLC 160 rel.

2005 SCMR 1610; 2003 PLC (C.S) 1247; 2007 PLC 381; 1980 PLC 981; 2002 SCMR 943; 1976 SCMR 74 and 1984 PLC 181 distinguished.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art.199(1)(a)(ii)---Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court---Writ of certiorari---Scope---Certiorari is a remedy available to annul a decision on the grounds of a legal error---It can also be invoked to rectify jurisdictional errors when a lower court or a tribunal acts beyond its jurisdiction, fails to exercise its jurisdiction, or where the court or a tribunal acts unlawfully in the exercise of its undisputed jurisdiction and adjudicates a matter in contravention of the principles of natural justice---High Court in issuing a writ of certiorari, operates in the capacity of supervisory jurisdiction.

Government of Pakistan through the Director-General, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad, and others v. Farheen Rashid, 2011 SCMR 1 rel.

Sohail Ahmed Khoso for Petitioner.

Shaukat Ali Chaudhry for Respondents Nos.2 to 4.

Dareshani Ali Haider 'Ada', Deputy Attorney General for Respondent No.1.

2025 P L C 73

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ

Messrs PAKISTAN BEVERAGES LIMITED through Executive Director

Versus

MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others

Constitutional Petition No.D-4153 of 2023, decided on 25th March, 2024.

(a) Master and servant---

----Termination of service---Verbal order---Effect---Under the labour laws, there is no provision permitting the employer to terminate the services of the worker verbally without a written order---Termination of service by a verbal order is alien to the labour law.

(b) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)---

----Sched. Para 1(b), S.Os. 2(g) & 12---Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012 ), S. 33---Reinstatement into service---Permanent workman---Entitlement---Evidence, deficiency of---Company /Establishment filed constitutional petition as the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) re-instated the respondents concluding that the respondents (thirteen in number) had produced sufficient material to show that they were permanent workers who had been working in petitioner /establishment as workers for the last several years---Validity---Record, revealed that the respondents only produced the I.D Card / attendance card issued by the petitioner /company where they were shown to be casual workers---Evidence adduced by respondents also revealed their certain adverse admissions relating to different respondents (as grievance petitioners) like not attaching the copy of the I.D card, not signing the grievance petition, no authority letter, casual workers written on the duty card, not being aware whether grievance notices were sent to the petitioner company or otherwise and not signing power of attorney---Thus, entire burden ought not to have been shifted upon the petitioner / company alone by the NIRC, whereas the respondents were set free as they failed to prove through cogent material that they rendered their services for the petitioner / company for more than nine months as required under the law---In the absence of such material, the petitioner / company could not be directed to reinstate their services which were of a temporary nature---National Industrial Relations Commission had erroneously granted the benefit of reinstatement of service to the respondents by holding that the respondents fall within the definition of permanent 'workmen', which findings were based on guesswork, conjectures and suffered from misreading of evidence and record, resulting in gross miscarriage of justice---High Court set-aide impugned orders passed by NIRC---Constitutional petition, filed by Company / Establishment, was allowed, in circumstance.

2018 SCMR 1181 distinguished.

(c) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)---

----Sched. Para 1(b), S.Os. 2(g) & 12---Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012), S. 33---Reinstatement into service---Permanent workman---Entitlement---Temporary / casual workman---Scope---Company / Establishment filed constitutional petition as the National Industrial Relations Commission re-instated the respondents---Held, that definition 2(g) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968, ('the Ordinance, 1968') provides the classification of the workman, which is sub-divided into six categories i.e. (i) permanent, (ii) probationers, (iii) badlis, (iv) temporary, (v) apprentice and (vi) contract workers---A temporary workman is defined in the Schedule to the Ordinance, 1968 as a workman who has been engaged for work of a temporary nature, which is likely to be finished within a period not exceeding nine months---The protection of the, daily wagers who have been performing their duties against permanent posts for a long period is Para 1(b) of the Schedule attached to the Ordinance, 1968---Standing Order 12 of the Ordinance 1968 provides that no temporary workmen (whether monthly rated, weekly rated daily rated or piece rated and no probational or badali shall be entitled to any notice if his services are terminated by the employer, nor shall any such workman be required to give any notice or pay wages in lieu thereof to the employer if he leaves the employment of his own accord---However, the situation is quite different than the permanent workman under Standing Order 12(3) of the Ordinance, 1968---Thus, NIRC had erroneously granted the benefit of reinstatement of service to the respondents by holding that the respondents fell within the definition of permanent 'workmen', which findings were based on guesswork, conjectures and suffered from misreading of evidence and record, resulting in gross miscarriage of justice---High Court set-aide impugned orders passed by NIRC---Constitutional petition, filed by Company / Establishment, was allowed, in circumstance.

Muhammad Ali and Ovais Ali Shah for Petitioner.

Bacha Fazal Manan for Respondent.

Kashif Nazir Assistant Attorney General for Respondents Nos.14 and 15.

2025 P L C 129

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Jaffer Raza, J

Messrs PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION through authorized person and another

Versus

MUHAMMAD REYAZ

IInd Appeal No.38 of 2023, decided on 18th April, 2025.

Sindh Payment of Wages Act, 2015 (VI of 2017)---

----S. 2(d)---Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (Service) Regulations, 1984, Regln. 1(3)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100---Second appeal---Damages for loss of job and salaries etc.---Contract employee---Suit and appeal filed by respondent / plaintiff were decreed in his favour by two Courts below---Plea raised by appellant / defendant was that the suit was not maintainable---Validity---Respondent / plaintiff, under S. 2(d) of Sindh Payment of Wages Act, 2015, could not have approached the Authority and had correctly invoked jurisdiction of Civil Court---Lower Appellate Court and Trial Court did not examine terms of contract between respective parties and had placed undue reliance on minutes of meeting of Board of directors---Provision of Regln. 1(3) of Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (Service) Regulations, 1984, had restricted its applicability to contractual employees---High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below---Second appeal was allowed in circumstances.

National General Insurance Company Ltd. through General Manager v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.6 Rawalpindi and others 2004 SCMR 683; Muslim Commercial Bank Limited v. Rizwan Ali Khan and others 2024 SCMR 360; Habib Bank Limited v. Gulzar Khan and others 2019 SCMR 946; Dilshad Khan Lodhi v. Allied Bank of Pakistan and others 2008 SCMR 1530; Sheikh Akhtar Aziz v. Mst. Shabnam Begum and others 2019 SCMR 524 and Sohail and others v. Pakistan National Shipping Corporation C.P. D-830 of 2014 ref.

Abdul Ghaffar for Appellants.

Muhammad Abu Bakar Khalil for Respondent along with Muhammad Absam Khalil and Nency Dean.

Ahmed Khan Khaskheli, A.A.G.

2025 P L C 173

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam and Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, JJ

Messrs CHANGYI KANGJI SANITATION ENGINEERING PAKISTAN (EAST) through Authorized Representative

Versus

AMIRULLAH and another

C.P. No. D-1342 of 2022, decided on 7th March, 2025.

Sindh Industrial Relations Act (XXIX of 2013)---

----S.34---Termination from service---Grievance petition before the Labour Court---Non-service of grievance notice on the employer before filing of grievance petition---Effect---Such an omission would be fatal to the competency of grievance petition---The petitioner establishment (employer) through the present Constitutional petition challenged the judgment passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, whereby, respondent No.1 (employee) was reinstated into the petitioner establishment with back benefits after setting aside the Labour Court's order---Petitioner establishment argued that the Appellate Tribunal overlooked undisputed facts and legal provisions, wrongly concluding that respondent No.1 was a permanent worker, despite no convincing evidence and non-service of grievance notice as required under S. 34 of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 (SIRA)---Held: It was undisputed (admitted in cross-examination by respondent No.1) that the grievance notice was not served at the address of the petitioner establishment (employer) but at the premises of CEO of the petitioner establishment, in spite of the fact that respondent No.1 was doing duty at the official premises of the petitioner establishment---This was fatal to the case of respondent Employee---Impugned judgment of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was set aside because grievance notice before the Labour Court was incompetently filed and this basic aspect of the case was overlooked by the Labour Appellate Court---Constitutional petition was disposed of, in circumstances.

Khushal Khan v. Muslim Commercial Bank Limited 2002 SCMR 943 rel.

Sufiyan Zaman for Petitioner.

S. Inayat Hussain Shah Bukhari for Respondent No.1.

Nemo. for Respondent No.2.

2025 P L C 1

[Lahore High Court]

Before Shujaat Ali Khan, J

PACKAGES LIMITED through Group Manager

Versus

PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another

Writ Petition No.28022 of 2023, heard on 30th September, 2024.

(a) Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010)---

----Ss.2(xxxi) & 33---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15(3)(a) & (h)---Grievance petition---Maintainability---"Workman"---Determination of---Procedure---Respondent/employee while working as Operator with petitioner-company was proceeded under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (Ordinance) on the allegation of misconduct---Duties, being performed by a person, are determining factor to adjudge as to whether he/she is a workman or not---Prosecution witnesses deposed in their examination in-chief that respondent had been performing duties of manual nature, thus, the plea of petitioner-company that the accused employee did not fall within the category of a workman, being contrary to the record, could not be given any weightage---Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent/employee for alleged violation of Standing Order No.15(3)(a) & (h) of the Ordinance, which starts with the words that a workman may be reprimanded or fined meaning thereby that the same is meant for a worker---Respondent filed grievance petition under S.33 of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 (Act) and the preamble thereof shows that the same has inter alia been enacted to regulate relations between employers and workmen---From inception of disciplinary proceedings upto issuance of dismissal letter of respondent, the petitioner-company itself had been relying upon different provisions of the Ordinance----Punishments provided under Standing Order 15 of the Ordinance are only meant for a workman and if the same was inapplicable to respondent, the entire proceedings conducted against him would stand nullified---Employer could not be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath inasmuch as once the status of a person had been admitted as workman, the same could not be allowed to be retracted without any change in the nature of his work---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. through General Attorney and another v. Amir Hussain and another 1996 SCMR 464; Crescent Jute Products Ltd. Jaranwala v. Muhammad Yaqub and others PLD 1978 SC 207; The Postmaster General, Sindh Province, Karachi and others v. Syed Farhan 2022 SCMR 1154; Khalid Mehmood v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and others 2018 SCMR 376; Bashir Ahmed v. Government of Sindh through Secretary, Home Department and 3 others 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1249 and Muhammad Naeem v. General Tyre and Rubber Company of Pakistan and another 2020 PLC 108 ref.

Messrs Pak Telecom Mobile Limited v. Muhammad Atif Bilal and 2 others 2024 SCMR 719; National Bank of Pakistan and another v. Anwar Shah and others 2015 SCMR 434; Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and others v. Muhammad Shahid Mumtaz and another 2011 SCMR 1475; National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad and 2 others 1993 SCMR 672; General Manager, Hotel Intercontinental, Lahore and another v. Bashir A. Malik and others PLD 1986 SC 103; Ejaz Ahmad Butt v. Habib Bank Ltd. and others 1986 SCMR 1262; United Bank Limited and 5 others v. Raja Ghulam Hussain and 4 others 1999 PLC 106 and Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Channa Khan and others 1980 PLC 981 distinguished.

(b) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)---

----S.O. 15(3)---Acts and omissions constituting misconduct---Determination---Mere attempt to play a leading role amongst the workers, while discussing issues, could not be termed as any of the omissions/acts as enumerated in S.O 15(3) of the Ordinance, and sarcastically laughing also did not constitute an offence amounting to misconduct---Production Engineer of petitioner-company, who interacted with respondent and others on his first day of joining duty in the petitioner-company, could not have adjudged the conduct and output of a worker having 23 years of blotless service to his credit---Petitioner-company did not produce anything to prove the allegation of misconduct, rather witnesses did not utter a word about conduct of respondent constituting misconduct on his part---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

(c) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)---

----S.O.15(3)(a) & (h)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Findings of inquiry officer---Substitution by High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction---Scope---Findings of the Inquiry Officer/Committee cannot be substituted but when the same are not based on true appraisal of the material on record the same cannot be considered sacrosanct rather in such eventuality no forum should feel shy to take care of such omission or commission.

(d) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)---

----S.O.15---Workman---Allegation of misconduct---Quantum of punishment---Choice of competent authority to award punishment---Scope---Instead of choice of the competent authority it is requirement of law that penalty should commensurate with gravity of allegation.

The Postmaster General Sindh Province, Karachi and others v. Syed Farhan 2022 SCMR 1154; Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Food Department, Lahore and another 2007 PLC (C.S.) 692 and Government of Punjab v. Shahid Mehmood Butt 2006 SCMR 443 rel.

(e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----S. 96 & O.XLI, R.33---Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010), S.33---Findings of the fora below at variance---In such eventuality preference was to be given to the verdict of the appellate forum until and unless the same was found to be perverse or arbitrary.

Hakim-ud-Din through L.Rs and others v. Faiz Bakhsh and others 2007 SCMR 870 rel.

(f) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)---

----S.O. 15(3)(a) & (h)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Discrimination---Voicing reservation against the policies of the employer company---Proceedings only against the respondent---During meeting with employer company, many other employees, along with respondent voiced reservations against the policies of the petitioner-company but initiation of proceedings against respondent alone proved that he was discriminated which approach being violative of Art.25 of the Constitution could not be approved----Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Barrister Rafay Altaf for Petitioner.

Ch. Imran Younas Goraya for Respondent No.2.

2025 P L C 38

[Lahore High Court]

Before Shams Mehmood Mirza, J

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others

Writ Petitions Nos.14891 of 2023 and 41703 of 2024, decided on 29th August, 2024.

Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976)---

----S.22(1)(b) & Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Monthly pension---Length of service---Rounding off---Contributions towards Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI) Funds---Complaint and review for pensionary benefits were dismissed by adjudicating authority for being short of the required length of service of 15 years---Held, that rounding off is in-built in the calculation of old age pension as provided for in the Schedule, meaning thereby that where service of an employee is more than 14.5 years he/she shall automatically become entitled to old age pension---Stipulation of rounding off contained in the Schedule to the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 ('the Act') was not at all considered in the orders, which is explanatory in character and must be read as the same expresses a clear intention that the length of service provided in proviso (b) to S.22(1) of Act is to be construed in conjunction with and subject to the Schedule, and the length of service contained in the proviso in question is controlled by the Explanation contained in the Schedule---Strict adherence to the text of proviso (b) to S.22(1) of the Act requiring 15 years of service as a compulsory condition would destroy and make the Explanation redundant contained in the Schedule---Such a narrow construction is not permissible as the Act is required to be construed as a whole---Proviso cannot nullify the primary objective of the main provision, meaning thereby that proviso cannot be allowed to operate in conflict with what is expressed in the main provision---Being a beneficial statute, the Act is required to be construed in the perspective and the purpose for which it was enacted---Interpretation of various provisions ought to be carried out in a manner that advances the objective of the Act and in favour of the employees especially so when the Schedule itself is quite explicit in granting benefit to such employees, who have completed more than six months of service for it to be treated as one full year---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly with a direction to respondents/Department to pay old age pension to the petitioners.

Pakistan Match Industries (Pvt.) Limited and others v. Assistant Collector, Sales Tax and Central Excise Mardan and others 2019 SCMR 906 and Muhammad Anwar Kurd v. State 2011 SCMR 1560 rel.

(b) Interpretation of statutes---

----Circular issued under an Act---Interpretation---Circular, which is in the form of an administrative direction cannot offend the provisions of and Act which are unambiguous.

Hassan Latif Ch. for Petitioner.

Sheraz Zaka, Assistant Attorney General.

2025 P L C 54

[Lahore High Court (Multan Bench)]

Before Asim Hafeez, J

NATIONAL RURAL SUPPORT PROGRAM (NRSP) through Programme Officer HR NRSP, Bahawalpur and 2 others

Versus

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, FULL BENCH AT LAHORE through Chairman and 2 others

Writ Petition No.2212 of 2024, decided on 24th October, 2024.

Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)---

----Ss. 2(x)(xxxiii) & 87---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(i)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Industrial dispute---Trans-provincial establishment---Petitioner / establishment assailed orders passed by the forums below declaring that provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were applicable---Validity---Petitioner / establishment qualified as an 'establishment' in terms of S. 2(x) of Industrial Relations Act, 2012, which included a company that had employed a workman for carrying on business, which nature of business was distinguishable from the industry---Respondent / employee was dismissed whose individual grievance came within the ambit of an industrial dispute in terms of S.2(xvi) of Industrial Relations Act, 2012---This was a dispute between an employer and workman and was connected with employment or otherwise concerning the terms and conditions of employment---Respondent / employee also came within the definition of workman under S.2 (xxxiii) of Industrial Relations Act, 2012, as he was not employed to conduct managerial or administrative assignment---Even if petitioner / establishment was not qualified as a 'commercial establishment' for the purpose of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, but it came within the ambit of an establishment under Industrial Relations Act, 2012 which might not be a ground for dismissing claim of respondent / employee in the wake of S. 87 of Industrial Relations Act, 2012, which had extended an overriding effect to the Act, 2012---Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of two for a below---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Syed Shahid Abbas and 36 others v. Chenab Club (Guarantee) Limited Faisalabad through President and another 2008 PLC 58; Messrs Pak Telecom Mobile Limited v. Muhammad Atif Bilal and 2 others 2024 PLC 130 and Fauji Foundation (Headquarters) through Manager Administration v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others 2007 SCMR 1346 rel.

Muhammad Ali Siddiqui, Fatima Safeer and Sammar Abbas for Petitioners.

Malik Masroor Haider Usman, Assistant Advocate General.

Rana Ghulam Hussain, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan.

2025 P L C 106

[Lahore High Court]

Before Shujaat Ali Khan, J

PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through General Manager and 2 others

Versus

ABDUL RASHEED and 3 others

Writ Petition No.13846 of 2011, decided on 12th December, 2024.

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)---

----Ss.2(xxx) & 46---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Ss.2(a) & 3(2)---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (V of 1968), S. 3(f)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, R.11---Jurisdiction of Labour Court and Service Tribunal---Scope---Regularization---Daily wage employees of Pakistan Railways---Industrial establishment, status of---Contention of the petitioners was that respondents did not fall within the definition of workmen, therefore, being civil servants they should have approached the Service Tribunal---Validity---Daily wage employees of Pakistan Railways, not employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, fall within the definition of "workman" under S. 2(xxx) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (IRO, 2002), and were, thus, entitled to approach the Labour Court for redressal of their grievances, including regularization of service---Pakistan Railways, being defined as a "railway" under S.3(f) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, constitutes an "industrial establishment," further subjecting its daily wage/work charge employees to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court---Petitioners filed application under O.VII, R. 11, C.P.C., seeking rejection of grievance petition filed by the respondents on the point of jurisdiction, which was dismissed and the said order attained finality having not been challenged by the petitioners---Objection to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, if not challenged at an earlier stage and allowed to attain finality, cannot be raised subsequently in a writ petition---Daily wage employees of a statutory corporation like Pakistan Railways do not automatically attain the status of "civil servants" within the meaning of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, in the absence of a corresponding amendment, thus, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal under S. 3(2) of the Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973, pertaining to the terms and conditions of civil servants, did not extend to daily wage employees---Objection raised by the petitioner as to jurisdiction of the Labour Court was spurned.

Divisional Superintendent Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi and others v. Syed Usman Ali and others 2021 SCMR 1008; Pakistan Railways through Chairman, Islamabad and another v. Sajid Hussain and others 2020 SCMR 1664; Chairman Pakistan Railways and others v. Arif Hussain and others 2008 PLC (C.S.) 240; Javed Iqbal and 20 others v. General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Headquarter Office Lahore and 2 others 2006 PLC 604 and Muhammad Naeem and 19 others v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through Chairman and 7 others 2006 PLC 374 ref.

General Manager, Optical Fibre System Telecom Company Ltd. PTC Headquarter, Islamabad and 2 others v. Abdul Rasheed Khan, Member NIRC Islamabad and another 2000 PLC (C.S.) 180 rel.

(b) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (V of 1968)---

----S.O. 12---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Concurrent findings of facts---Interference by High Court---Scope---Regularization---Daily wage employees of Pakistan Railways---Order of termination in post remand proceedings during the operation/subsistence of injunctive order of Labour Court and High Court---Legality---Regularizations of other daily wage employees---Discrimination---Mala fide---Alteration in record---Scope---Respondents daily wage employees claimed their regularization against permanent posts---Plea of the petitioners was that since the services of the respondents had been terminated, therefore, they could not be regularized---Validity---Termination of service of daily wage employees, who had attained the status of permanent workmen after the expiry of the requisite period, without adhering to the procedure laid down under S.O. 12 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, was illegal and could not impede their claim for regularization---Evidence of mala fide on the part of the employer, such as alteration of attendance records to show unauthorized absence or discriminatory treatment in regularizing similarly situated employees, could be taken into consideration by the courts while deciding the grievance petition of the affected employees---Termination letter of respondents showed that the same related to promotion of another employee, however, on the margin of the said document a note as to termination of respondent had been given---Petitioners were not able to produce termination order of one of the respondents, which cast serious doubts about the conduct of the petitioners---Any action taken by an employer against an employee during the subsistence of an interim injunction or a status quo order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction is subject to scrutiny by the said court and cannot be used to prejudice the employee's rights in the ongoing proceedings---Concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below cannot be upset in Constitutional petition---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. Through General Manager and another v. Din Muhammad and others 2019 PLC 30 and Farhat Jabeen v. Muhammad Safdar and others 2011 SCMR 1073 rel.

Umer Sharif for Petitioners.

2025 P L C 121

[Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Before Anwaar Hussain, J

Mst. TASAWAR BEGUM

Versus

EMPLOYEES' OLD AGE BENEFIT INSTITUTION ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY-III, ISLAMABAD and another

Writ Petition No.3849 of 2022, heard on 12th November, 2024.

Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976)---

----S. 22B(2)---Survivor's Pension---Second wife/widow of the deceased employee/insured person claimed survivor's pension after the death of first widow, who was receiving such pension---Employees Old-Age Institution/respondent denied the claim of the second wife on the ground that her Nikah with the deceased employee was solemnized after the age of 60 years, thus, she was not entitled to survivors' pension---Validity---Section 22B(2) of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits, 1976, (Act) clearly exhibits the intention and wisdom of the legislature by putting a condition that only such spouse will be entitled to survivor's pension, who had married the deceased pensioner/employee before he attained the minimum age prescribed for the old age pension---Law had not put any clog on the right of the employee to contract multiple marriages, as per his personal law, but only regulated the award of the pension to surviving spouse, by stipulating the conditions of entitlement---Pakistan is not an economically developed and/or advanced country rather a developing country with limited resources---While the legislature had provided for the survivor's benefit to a widow but had placed a curtailment on such benefit, that same should not be permissible to a widow, who married a deceased after a particular age prescribed in this regard, which was intended to save the respondent-EOBI from an unnecessary burden in view of the limited resources for provision of survivor's benefit---Even though pension is not a bounty from the employer but across the globe, different States have devised and set out mechanisms and regulatory framework by way of imposing limitations regarding the time when the marriage takes place, length of the marriage, age differences to avoid the obvious unfair exploitation of the scheme by marrying on one's death bed or after a particular prescribed age, that puts burden on limited financial resources of the institution---Plain language used by the legislature in S. 22B (2) of the Act left no room for further exercise by High Court by resort to any other artillery of interpretation except principle of literal interpretation---Section 22B(2) of the Act does not run against such standards set out by the International Labour Organization and laws of other jurisdiction---Petitioner remained silent since the death of deceased employee and had acquiesced to the receipt of pension exclusively by the first wife, thus, the petitioner was estopped from claiming the survivor's pension after the death of first wife---High Court found no illegality in the order of rejection passed by respondent/EOBI---Constitution petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Haider Mahmood Mirza for Petitioner.

Tariq Bilal along with Sarfraz Ahmad, Regional Head, EOBI for Respondents.

2025 P L C 160

[Lahore High Court]

Before Ch. Muhammad Iqbal and Ahmad Nadeem Arshad, JJ

NAVEED HAFEEZ

Versus

PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION LIMITED through Chairman PTCL and 8 others

Regular First Appeal No.58452 of 2022, decided on 7th October, 2024.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100 & O.VI, R.I---Contract employee of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Limited---Absence from duty---Termination from service---Non-statutory rules of service---Claim of rights and privileges of civil servants---Legality---Appellant instituted a suit for declaration and recovery of damages on account of his termination without any notice---Respondents raised objection as to maintainability of suit before civil court being a subject of labour laws and the controversy relating to service matter---Validity---Appellant admitted that he was given notices/letters to explain his position; that he remained absent from duty without any intimation and failed to produce any medical prescription or any other documents showing that he remained admitted in the hospital---Appellant did not mention in his plaint that he met with an accident and remained admitted in hospital---Evidence beyond pleadings can neither be produced nor relied upon---In absence of any statutory rules the employee cannot claim the rights and privileges as are available to "Civil Servants" rather the rule of "master and servant" would be attracted which is to the effect that unwilling employer cannot be forced to accept the services of an employees who has been removed from service---No declaration can be issued as to the subsistence of a contract that by its own terms and conditions is terminable at the option of the employer---In absence of any statutory provisions protecting a servant, it is not possible under the law to grant him a decree against an unwilling master to the effect that he is still his servant---If the employee feels that the order of removal was not just or fair or suffered from any mala fide, the remedy will be to sue for damages and not for declaration for subsistence of service as no declaration can be issued as to the subsistence of a contract that by its own terms and conditions is terminable at the option of employer---Appellant was an employee of "Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Limited", thus, the relationship between him and the "Corporation" was to be regulated entirely by law of "Master and Servant" and the Constitutional safeguards available to the generality of civil servants would not be available to him---Matter of appellant's reinstatement after cancellation of his termination fell within the domain of Labour fora and not in the Civil Courts---Trial Court had rightly held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter---Appellant failed to utter a single word describing the details of loss suffered by him due to his termination order such as fee of advocate or other charges for facing the litigation, medical certificate to prove mental agony as well as damages due to loss of his reputation---Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Zabie Ullah Nagra for Appellant.

Umar Abdullah for Respondents.

2025 P L C 81

[National Industrial Relations Commission]

Before Munawar Hussain Toori, Member

HABIB AHMAD

Versus

PTCL and others

Case No.4B(296)/2020-M and C.M.A. No.24B(253)/2020-M, decided on 16th April, 2024.

(a) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)---

----Ss. 2 (viii) & (xxviii) & 33---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.Os.2(c), (f) & (h) and 15(4)---Grievance petition---Contract between company and contractor for supply of labour (employees)---Status of such employees---Plea of the Respondents / PTCL was that the petitioner was not their employee but of contractor (Ask Development) which was evident from an appointment letter dated 07-02-2017 issued by Ask Development which was signed by petitioner---Validity---Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 03-03-2001 as Lab Technician ; whereas, annexed appointment letter of Respondents/ PTCL, having been signed by the their Assistant General Manager (S&E) M.TR, also showed that the petitioner was directly appointed by PTCL and there was no mention of Ask Development in said appointment order---Therefore, the petitioner was actually employee of PTCL and not Ask Development---Thus, Ask Development was dummy contractor having no authority over the petitioner---Petitioner served more than 15 years with the Respondents / PTCL, thus, how was it possible that the petitioner was terminated from service by Ask Development on 11-05-2020---Letter dated 07-02-2017 by the Respondent/contractor (Ask Development) was based on mala fide and it had no legal status---It was evident from the record (salary slip etc.) that the petitioner had directly received his monthly salary from Respondents / PTCL, showing that the petitioner was on the pay roll of the respondents / PTCL and worked under the management of the respondents / PTCL and not of Respondent / contractor (Ask Development)---Record also showed that on 23-12-2005, an investigation committee, consisting of three members of respondents / PTCL, had been made for investigation of daily wages employees and the said committee verified 34 employees and the petitioner was also included in the said list at serial number 34---Thus, the present matter did not require further evidence as it was a very simple case and everything was clear in it and the counsels for the parties also agreed to decide the case without recording of evidence---National Industrial Relations Commission set-aside the impugned termination from service letter issued against the petitioner being illegal and without justification; directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of his alleged termination---Grievance petition was allowed.

Fauji Fertilizer Company Ltd. v. National Industrial Relations Commission and others 2013 SCMR 1253 ref.

(b) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)---

----S.33---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15(4)---Grievance petition---Dismissal on the allegation of misconduct---Show-Cause Notice, non-issuing of---Inquiry, non-holding of---Effect---Record showed that the petitioner was terminated from service without issuing any show-cause notice and without holding any inquiry---It was established that the petitioner had been terminated from service without observing prescribed procedure as provided under the provisions of Standing Order 15(4) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (S.O.) Ordinance, 1968---Thus, the action of the respondents / PTCL was illegal, without jurisdiction and not sustainable in the eyes of law---National Industrial Relations Commission set-aside the impugned termination from service letter issued against the petitioner, being illegal and without justification; directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of his alleged termination---Grievance petition was allowed.

Hafeez Shah and others v. UBL 2001 SCMR 931 ref.

(c) National Industrials Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 2016---

----Regln.60(1)---Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012), S.33---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.2 (c),(f) & (h)---Grievance petition---Matter before National Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission')---Expeditious disposal---Recording of evidence dispensed with by the Commission---Legality---Commission, powers of---Pertinently, the present case had been remanded by the Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission ('Full Bench') to decide the same preferably within two months and to implead contractor (Ask Development) as a party---Orders sheet of the (present) petition showed that Ask Development had been impleaded as party (as Respondents Nos.6 and 7) and several notices had been issued to them to file their written reply but they showed their lack of interest in the matter and deliberately lingered on the matter and later (on 24-01-2024), their right of filing written reply was closed---According to the NIRC (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 2016, "for the expeditious disposal of the business before the Commission, it may direct any examination or cross-examination or re-examination to be cut short or dispensed with"---So on the verbal request of counsels for the parties for the expeditious disposal of the case, the Commission dispensed with the requirement of recording of evidence in the matter---Even, in the remanding order, the Full Bench mentioned that the Trial Court, of it felt necessary, to record evidence of the parties and decide the matter preferably within two months---Thus, , the present matter did not require further evidence as it was a very simple case and everything was clear in it and the counsels for the parties also agreed to decide the case without recording of evidence---National Industrial Relations Commission set-aside the impugned termination from service letter issued against the petitioner, being illegal and without justification; directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of his alleged termination---Grievance petition was allowed.

Malik Tariq Rajwana for Petitioner.

Bilal Ameen for Respondents Nos.1 to 5.

2025 P L C 168

[National Industrial Relations Commission]

Before Munawar Hussain Toori, Member

KHALID MEHMOOD

Versus

SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINE LIMITED and others

Case No.4B(161)/2018-M, and C.M.A. No.24B(253)/2020-M, decided on 24th April, 2024.

Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)---

----S. 33---Grievance petition---Termination, Reinstatement---Two inquiry reports, contradiction in---Effect---Plea of the Respondents / SNGPL was that the grievance petitioner was Senior Associate Engineer having a managerial job---Validity---It was admitted from the record that initially the petitioner was appointed as Electrician on

06-12-1994, thereafter his post was re-designated as Sub-Engineer and then he was promoted as Senior Associate Engineer---Record revealed that the petitioner was an active member of Employees Union SNGPL, and his (exhibited ) salary slips showed that union dues were deducted from his salary---Record revealed that no documentary evidence had been produced by the respondents regarding nature of duties of the petitioner---Respondents had failed to produce any suitable material which showed that the petitioner had power of managerial post---Record also revealed that two inquiry reports were submitted (having been exhibited / marked ) by the respondents against the petitioner---First inquiry report dated 16-07-2014 was submitted by the petitioner which was produced by the respondents on 12-04-2016 before the Commission---Second inquiry report dated 14-07-2015 was submitted by the respondents in the statement of the only witness they produced---Cross-examination conducted on said witness revealed that, he admitted that the inquiry report had been submitted in the Commission, and in reply to most of the questions put to him he said "I don't know"---It was admitted from the record that the charge sheet was issued on 16-07-2014 and petitioner was dismissed from service on

26-08-2018---After lapse of 3/4 years from the date of vacation of stay order dated 20-08-2015, the respondents had dismissed the petitioner from service vide order 26-06-2018---It was established from the record that the respondents had submitted two fake and ambiguous inquiry reports before the Commission and tempered and changed the record which showed mala fide on their part---It was also admitted from the record that the inquiry officer had not appeared before the Commission---Respondents remained unsuccessful in proving that petitioner was not a workman---Commission set-aside the impugned dismissal vide letter dated 26-08-2018 issued against the petitioner being illegal and without justification and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of his alleged dismissal from service vide letter dated 26-08-2018 with all back benefits---Grievance petition was allowed accordingly.

2015 PLC 33 ref.

Malik Tariq Rajwana for Petitioner.

2025 P L C 148

[Peshawar High Court (Abbottabad Bench)]

Before Muhammad Ijaz Khan, J

Messrs KIPS ACADEMY

Versus

ZAHID MEHMOOD and others

L.C.R. No.06-A of 2023, decided on 24th October, 2024.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act (IX of 2013)---

----Preamble, Ss.1(3), 2(ii), 3, 15(1), 15(2) & 17---Employee of trans-provincial establishment---Dispute over refusal to pay legal dues/service benefits---Jurisdiction of Authority under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013 (Act, 2013)---Scope---Authority and Labour Court concurrently allowed the claim application of the employee---Petitioner-Establishment filed civil revision raising objection as to jurisdiction of Authority under Act, 2013 to entertain claim application of the employee, as under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (Act, 2012), a dispute between an employee and trans-provincial establishment was to be determined by the National Industrial Relation Commission (NIRC)---Validity---In the Act, 2012 the jurisdiction of the Authority established under the Act, 2013 had not been excluded and similarly, in the Act, 2013 too there was no concept of trans-provincial establishment which obviously meant that the domain and functions of NIRC as established under the Act, 2012 and that of an Authority as established under the Act, 2013 were not in conflict qua their sphere of jurisdiction rather they were independent forums duly accommodating the powers and functions of each other---Thus, even if there was a dispute between an employee and of trans-provincial establishment, and if any branch of such establishment was situated within the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa then an Authority established under the Act, 2013 had the jurisdiction to entertain a claim of the employee, hence, the objection of the petitioners-establishment had no legal substance---Before High Court on one hand, the petitioner-establishment raised an objection of jurisdiction of the Authority under the Act, 2013, however, on the other when the Authority passed the order, the petitioner itself surrendered by filing an appeal before the Labour Court under S. 17 of the Act, 2013, thus, when a petitioner had neither raised such objection at the initial stage and when it had surrendered itself to the jurisdiction of the Authority as well as appellate forum established under the Act, 2013 then at a belated stage such objection of the petitioner could not be appreciated---Act, 2013 had provided a complete mechanism for the redressal of grievances of an employee and similarly it had also specifically described the class of employees as well as the categories of the establishments to which the Act, 2013 was to be applicable---Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstance.

Messrs Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2018 SCMR 802; Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. v. Member NIRC and others 2024 SCMR 535 and Muslim Commercial Bank Limited v. Muhammad Anwar Mandokhel and others 2024 SCMR 298 distinguished.

Telenor Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and 17 others 2019 PLC 240 rel.

Muhammad Asjad Pervez Abbasi for Petitioner.

Jehangir Khan for Respondents.

2025 P L C 20

[Balochistan High Court]

Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, CJ and Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, J

MUSHTAQ AHMED and another

Versus

The GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, LABOUR AND MANPOWER DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, QUETTA, through Secretary and 3 others

C.P. No.1042 of 2024, decided on 10th October, 2024.

Balochistan Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979---

----R.30---Cancellation of registration of trade unions formed by employees of different Government Departments, Semi-Government Departments and Autonomous Bodies---Contention of the petitioners was that while they were agitating their demands to the authority being Collective Bargaining Agent, registration of their trade union being employees of Lasbela Industrial Estate Development Authority (LIEDA) was cancelled---Validity---LIEDA was established through an Ordinance, which was an autonomous body, thus, keeping in view a judgment of High Court its employees were not entitled to form any union---LIEDA Employees Union had been registered by the Registrar, Trade Union, Balochistan, without considering the actual and legal aspects of the matter---In view of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979 (Rules), the unions of employees of Government Departments, Semi-Government Departments and Autonomous Bodies, being governed by the Rules, could not be registered---Considering the relevant provisions of the applicable law as well as the Rules, it was held that the petitioners' union was rightly cancelled by the Registrar Trade Union, Balochistan, vide impugned order---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Constitution Petition No.669 of 2013 and Constitution Petitions Nos.669 of 2013 and 400 of 2015 rel.

Tahir Ali Baloch for Petitioners.

Zahoor Ahmed Baloch, Additional Advocate General for Respondents Nos.1 to 3.

Syed Jameel Ahmed Agha for Respondent No.4.

2025 P L C 42

[Balochistan High Court]

Before Muhammad Ejaz Swati ACJ and Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, J

BALOCHISTAN IRRIGATION EMPLOYEES REGISTERED through Chairman CBA and others

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary Irrigation and Power Department and others

Constitution Petitions Nos.595 of 2020, 455 of 2022 and 430 of 2023, decided on 31st August, 2024.

Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)---

----S.19(1)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Trade Union of Employees of Irrigation Department---Registration---Collective Bargaining Agents relating to establishments located in Islamabad Capital Territory---Trans-provincial and industry-wise trade unions---Determination---Jurisdiction of NIRC to register trade union of workers of Provincial Department of Government of Balochistan (GoB)---Scope---Petitioner challenged the registration certificate and Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) Certificate of the trade union of workers of Irrigation Department---Contention of the petitioner was that Government Departments of GoB were taking steps for cancellation of registration of trade unions existing in different Government Departments in compliance with a judgment of High Court, thus, Registrar, NIRC, had committed illegality not only by registering the said union, but also by issuing CBA Certificate to the said union---Validity---Previously existing Trade Unions in Irrigation Department, GoB were subsequently unregistered in compliance with a judgment of High Court---Preamble of Industrial Relations Act, 2012, (IRA, 2012) provided the scope of IRA, 2012, which was enacted to rationalize the law relating to formation of Trade Unions, federation of Trade Unions and determining the Collective Bargaining Agents relating to establishments located in Islamabad Capital Territory and in trans-provincial industry---Definition of "industry-wise trade union" means a Trade Union having its membership in more than one Province in a group of establishments owned by one employer, thus, considering the definition, the workers of Irrigation Departments, GoB, did not qualify the definition of either "trans-provincial establishment" or "industry-wise trade union"---Industrial Relations Act, 2012, mentions "trans provincial" as any establishment, group of establishments, industry having its branches in more than one Province, therefore, the employees of Irrigation Department, GoB, or its Canal Division could not be termed as "workers of trans-provincial establishment" or "industry-wise trade union"---Apart from this the "employer of Pakistan Canal Labour Union Balochistan" was GoB and the Federal Government had no nexus with the administration of Irrigation Department, GoB, thus, the Registrar Trade Unions, NIRC had no jurisdiction or authority to register the Pakistan Canal Labour Union Balochistan under the IRA, 2012---Constitutional petitions were allowed, in circumstances.

Pakistan Workers Federation, Balochistan v. Government of Pakistan through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad 2014 PLC 351 rel.

Muhammad Ewaz Zehri and Mujahid Hussain Qaisarni for Petitioner (in Constitution Petition No.595 of 2020).

Muhammad Ali Rakshani, Additional Advocate General for Respondents Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6 (in Constitution Petition No.595 of 2020).

Gulzar Ahmed Kanrani for Respondent No.4 (in Constitution Petition No.595 of 2020).

Mir Sahibdad Mirwani for Petitioner (in Constitution Petition No.455 of 2022).

Muhammad Ali Rakhshani, Additional Advocate General for Respondents Nos.1 and 4 (in Constitution Petition No.455 of 2022).

Gulzar Ahmed Kanrani for Respondent No.3 (in Constitution Petition No.455 of 2022).

Muhammad Ali Rakhshani, Additional Advocate General for Petitioner (in Constitution Petition No.430 of 2023).

Gulzar Ahmed Kanrani for Respondent No.1 (in Constitution Petition No.430 of 2023).

Muhammad Ewaz Zehri and Mujahid Hussain Qaisrani for Respondent No.5 (in Constitution Petition No.430 of 2023).

2025 P L C 88

[Balochistan High Court]

Before Muhammad Ejaz Swati and Sardar Ahmed Haleemi, JJ

NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through President through Authorized Officer / Attorney and others

Versus

JALALUDDIN and others

C.Ps. Nos.146, 147 of 2024, 1195 of 2023, 203 and 355 of 2022, decided on 16th December, 2024.

Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)---

----S.Os. 2(i) & 2(g)(i)(b)---Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012), Ss.2(xxxiii) & 33---Permanent employee/workman---Scope---Janitorial services in National Bank of Pakistan---Extension of contracts from time to time without any break---Regularization of service---Private respondents/employees filed their grievance petitions, which were allowed by the National Industrial Relation Commission, Bench Quetta, against which petitioners/employer/Bank preferred their appeals, which were partially allowed declaring the regularization against law and also declaring the employees as permanent workers of the Bank which entitled them to all the benefits---Pleas of outsourced employment through contractors and delay in filing the grievance petitions by the employees was taken---Validity---Any person performing his duties in the industrial or commercial establishment who completed a period of 90 days successfully, fell within the definition of workman---Bank had not denied the fact that the employees were working as janitorial staff in the respective branches without any break and their monthly salaries were paid to them by the Bank which fact was also admitted by the representative of the Bank in his cross-examination and also supported by the debit vouchers issued by the Bank---No documentary evidence substantiating employment between the contractors and the employees was available on the record, rather, the record revealed that the private respondents were performing their duties for many years under the supervision of the bank, as such they fell in the definition of permanent workman---Though, the Bank alleged that the services of the employees had been hired through contractors/outsource arrangement, but during the proceedings, the alleged contractors did not come forward to show that they had an agreement with the Bank regarding the provisions of janitorial staff and the contractors had paid monthly salary to the employees---Even though there was no bar to hire the services of the required human sources through outsource contractors, but it could not be used as a tool to deprive the permanent workman of their legitimate/fundamental rights to explicit labor laws---Employees in one of constitutional petitions filed a grievance petition under S.33 of the Industrial Relation Act, 2012, along with an application for condonation of delay, which was not rebutted by the Bank, meaning thereby that the Bank did not object---No infirmity, perversity, or jurisdiction error had been found in the impugned orders---Constitutional petitions were dismissed, in circumstances.

Qaim Ali Shah and another v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary at Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others 2023 PLC (C.S) 475; Messrs Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. v. Zeeshan Usmani and others 2022 PLC (C.S) 424; Secretary Local Government, Election Rural Development, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and others v. Muhammad Tariq Khan and others 2021 SCMR 1433; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Forest, Peshawar and others v. Sher Aman and others 2022 SCMR 406; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others v. Intizar Ali and others 2022 SCMR 472; Deputy Director Finance and Administration FATA through Additional Chief Secretary FATA, Peshawar, and others v. Dr. Lal Marjan and others 2022 SCMR 566; Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and others v. Prof. Dr. Javed Iqbal and others 2022 SCMR 897; Deputy Commissioner Upper Dir, and others v. Mst. Nusrat Begum 2022 SCMR 964; Muhammad Sajjad v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Aviation Division and others 2022 PLC (C.S) 469; Umar Rasheed Malik and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others 2022 PLC (C.S) 1498; Khushal Khan Khattak University through Vice-Chancellor and others v. Jabran Ali Khan and others 2021 SCMR 977; Vice-Chancellor, Bacha Khan University Charsada, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others v. Tanveer Ahmad and others 2022 PLC (C.S) 85; Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. v. Muhammad Samiullah 2021 SCMR 998; Vice-Chancellor, Bacha Khan University Charsada, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others v. Tanveer Ahmad and others 2021 SCMR 1995; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others v. Muhammad Younas 2021 SCMR 1045; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Agriculture, Livestock and Cooperative Department Peshawar and others v. Saeed-ul-Hassan and others 2021 SCMR 1376; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Health, Peshawar and others v. Jawad Ali and others 2021 SCMR 185; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Workers Welfare Board through Chairman v. Raheel Ali Gohar and others 2020 SCMR 2068; M/s Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. v. Ghulam Ali and others SBLR 2015 Supreme Court 233 and Israr Ali and others v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs Department and others 2023 PLC (C.S) 358 distinguished.

Executive Engineer, Central Civil Divisions Pak. P.W.D Quetta v. Abdul Aziz and others PLD 1996 SC 610; Qayyum Nawaz and others v. N.W.F.P Small Industries Development Barod, Peshawar through Manning Director Kohat Road, Peshawar and others 2000 PLC 215; Ikram Bari and others v. National Bank of Pakistan through President and another 2005 SCMR 100; General Manager Pakistan International Airline and another v. Matiullah and others 2017 PLC 148; Muhammad Ashraf Khan and another v. Ghulam Rabbani 1987 PLC 298 and Reckitt and Colman of Pakistan Ltd. v. Carmine Demllo and others 2001 PLC 543 ref.

Ikram Bari and 524 others v. National Bank of Pakistan through President and another 2005 SCMR 100 and IFFCO Pakistan (Private) Limited v. Ghulam Murtaza and others 2024 SCMR 1548 rel.

Malik Khushal Khan for Petitioner (in C.P. No.146 of 2024).

Azam Jan Zarkoom for Respondent No.1 (in C.P. No.146 of 2024).

Khushal Khan Kasi for Respondent No.4 (in C.P. No.146 of 2024).

Malik Khushal Khan for Petitioner (in C.P. No.147 of 2024).

Azam Jan Zarkoon for Respondents No.1 (in C.P. No.147 of 2024).

Malik Khushal Khan for Petitioners Nos.1 and 3 (in C.P. No.1195 of 2023).

Khushal Khan Kasi for Respondents Nos.2 (in C.P. No.1185 of 2023).

Malik Khushal Khan for Petitioners (in C.P. No.203 of 2022).

Azam Jan Zarkoon for Respondents Nos.1 and 2 (in C.P. No.203 of 2022).

Malik Khushal Khan for Petitioners Nos.1 and 3 to 5 (in C.P. No.355 of 2022).

Khushal Khan Kasi for Petitioner No.2 (in C.P. No.355 of 2022).

Azam Jan Zarkoon for Respondent No.1 (in C.P. No.355 of 2022).

2025 P L C 155

[Balochistan High Court]

Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ

ZAHIR SHAH and 4 others

Versus

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY through Director General Karachi and another

C.P. No.450 of 2022, decided on 10th December, 2024.

Constitution of Pakistan----

----Arts. 25 & 199---Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012), Ss.33 & 58---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Regularization---Discrimination---Absence of any law or policy---Grievance petition filed by the petitioner for regularization of his service was allowed without back benefits---Both the parties preferred their respective appeals, however, the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed being not maintainable owing to inapplicability of Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (IRA, 2012) to the Civil Aviation Authority and the appeal of the respondent-Department was allowed---Validity---While exercising constitutional jurisdiction, the High Court cannot direct the executive or any other institution working thereunder to make a specific policy relating to regularization of service of the employees of the concerned departments or to direct them to regularize the services of any kind of employee without any backing of law and policy---However, High Court may intervene and strike down any policy, which is found to be contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution---Neither the petitioners nor the respondents had brought before High Court any enactment or policy for regularization of services of the petitioners, thus, in absence of any statutory backing, High Court was unable to direct the respondents to regularize service of the petitioners---Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances, with the expectation that while keeping in view long service and that too without any complaint, the petitioners could not go elsewhere for job, thus, they deserved a sympathetic consideration by the department concerned either by enactment or by framing a policy for regularization or at least place their cases for regularization.

Ejaz Akbar Kasi v. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting 2011 PLC (C.S.) 367; Chief Secretary Government of Balochistan v. Adeel-ur-Rehman 2024 PLC (C.S.) 242 and Vice Chancellor Agriculture University v. Muhammad Shafiq 2024 SCMR 527 rel.

Sher Shah Kasi and Raza Khan for Petitioners.

Shams-ud-Din Achakzai for Respondents.