2009 SCMR 320 (PLP)
SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AKHTAR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 SCMR 320 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Syed Sakhi Hussain Bokhari and Sheikh Hakim Ali, JJ |
| Parties | SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AKHTAR and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 SCMR 320 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 SCMR 320 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Syed Sakhi Hussain Bokhari and Sheikh Hakim Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 SCMR 320 (PLP) (SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AKHTAR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Tariq Ahmed, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab for Petitioners.
- Sher Nawaz Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos.367-L to 370-L, 387-L, 388-L and No.404-L of 2008).
- Nemo for Respondents (in C.P. No.386-L of 2008).
- 2. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab vehemently contended that the respondents were not workers within the meaning of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. Therefore, the Labour Court did not possess the jurisdiction in respect of their terms and conditions of service. It was further contended that in view of Rule 1.31 of Chapter 1 of the Establishment Temporary and Work Charge Regularization Rules of Irrigation Department, the respondents could not claim to be declared as permanent employees.
- 4. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. We find that the Labour Court had recorded its findings on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and came to the conclusion that in view of the nature of duties performed by the respondents and their length of continuous service the respondents were entitled to be regularized in service. Ordinarily, we are not expected to substitute findings of fact recorded by the competent forum. The question whether such employees were to be treated to be civil servants was not seriously agitated by the petitioner department at the appropriate stage. Prima facie, in 'view of the definition contained in section 2 of Punjab Civil Servant Act, 1974, the work-charged employees did not fall within the category of Civil Servants. However, this point needs to be examined further in some other appropriate case. In our opinion, the impugned judgment of the High Court is plainly correct. These are not fit cases warranting interference by this Court.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 12-3-2008 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench passed in F.A.Os. Nos.18-L to 25-L of 2007).
Ss. 2(xxx), 46 & 48
Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S.2
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Grievance petition filed by employees before the Labour Court for regularization of their services, having been allowed by the Labour Court, Department preferred appeal, which was dismissed by the High Court
Labour Court had recorded its findings on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and came to the conclusion that in view of the nature of duties performed by employees and their length of continuous service, they were entitled to be regularized in service
Ordinarily, the Supreme Court was not expected to substitute findings of fact recorded by the competent forum
Question whether employees were to be treated to be civil servants, was not seriously agitated by the Department at the appropriate stage
Prima facie, in view of the definition contained in S.2 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, the work-charged employees did not fall within the category of civil servants
Such point, however needed to be examined further in some other appropriate case
Impugned judgment of the High Court was plainly correct
Cases were not fit warranting interference by the Supreme Court
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Ikram Bari v. National Bank of Pakistan 2005 SCMR 100 and Muhammad Asim v. Telecommunication and others 1997 PLC (C.S.) 1131 ref.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.
The respondent in all these cases were appointed in different categories on work charged basis, between the years 1987 to 2000. They filed grievance petitions before the Punjab Labour Court, Multan for regularization of their service which were allowed vide consolidated judgment dated 16-12-2006. Therefore, the petitioner department preferred F.A.Os. Nos.18-L to 25-L of 2007 which were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, vide impugned judgment, dated 12-3-2008. Hence, these petitions for leave to appeal.
2. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab vehemently contended that the respondents were not workers within the meaning of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. Therefore, the Labour Court did not possess the jurisdiction in respect of their terms and conditions of service. It was further contended that in view of Rule 1.31 of Chapter 1 of the Establishment Temporary and Work Charge Regularization Rules of Irrigation Department, the respondents could not claim to be declared as permanent employees.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the services of respondents were ordered by the Lahore High Court to be regularized keeping in view their continuous service for a number of years, without any break, and the nature of the duties performed by them. Therefore, the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and the High Court did not warrant interference by this Court. He also relied on the cases of Ikram Bari v. National Bank of Pakistan 2005 SCMR 100 and Muhammad Asim v. Telecommunication and others 1997 PLC (C.S.) 1131 in support of his contention that in somewhat similar cases the work charged employees were regularized.
4. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. We find that the Labour Court had recorded its findings on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and came to the conclusion that in view of the nature of duties performed by the respondents and their length of continuous service the respondents were entitled to be regularized in service. Ordinarily, we are not expected to substitute findings of fact recorded by the competent forum. The question whether such employees were to be treated to be civil servants was not seriously agitated by the petitioner department at the appropriate stage. Prima facie, in 'view of the definition contained in section 2 of Punjab Civil Servant Act, 1974, the work-charged employees did not fall within the category of Civil Servants. However, this point needs to be examined further in some other appropriate case. In our opinion, the impugned judgment of the High Court is plainly correct. These are not fit cases warranting interference by this Court.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these petitions which are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. H.B.T./S-51/SC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.