2011 SCMR 1451 (PLP)
RASHID AHMED — Petitioner Versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GEPCO and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 1451 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | RASHID AHMED — Petitioner Versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GEPCO and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 1451 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 SCMR 1451 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 1451 (PLP) (RASHID AHMED — Petitioner Versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GEPCO and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aurangzeb Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood ul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th May, 2011.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the order. dated 5-7-2010 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeal No. 93(L) of 2008).
Ss. 3 & 10
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXVIII of 1969), S.25-A
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 212(3)
Dismissal from service under provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000
Employee of an Electric Power Company
Grievance petition of employee accepted by Labour Court, but dismissed by High Court in appeal filed by Authority on the ground that Labour Court lacked jurisdiction as such company was a statutory body and owned by Federal Government, thus, its employee had remedy against an order of departmental authority before Service Tribunal
Dismissal of employee's appeal by Service Tribunal on ground that the company had no statutory rules, thus Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction against impugned penalty
Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider as to whether High Court could have accepted appeal of authority shortly on ground that Labour Court had no jurisdiction; and whether confusion over jurisdiction would not entitle employee to seek condonation of delay in challenging such order. Civil Petitions Nos.1863 of 2009, 2191 of 2005, 804-K of 2009, 1247 of 2009, 12-K, 13-K and 62 - 64 of 2010 ref. Petitioner in person:
Judgment & Decree
Through this petition, leave is sought against the judgment dated 5-7-2010 vide which petitioner's appeal was disposed of for lack of jurisdiction as the Tribunal observed as follows:-- "The appellant is an employee of GEPCO and GEPCO is not governed by the statutory rules, hence the Tribunal has no jurisdiction despite the fact that penalty has been imposed on the appellant under the provisions of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Reference is made to a recent judgment dated 13-4-2010 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan passed in Civil Petitions Nos. 1863 of 2009, 2191 of 2005, 804-K of 2009, 1247 of 2009, 12-K, 13-K and 62-64 of 2010 as well as several judgments given by this Tribunal in similar cases. The appeal is thus abated as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The appellant may seek remedy from the appropriate forum. Parties be informed."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had challenged the order of the competent authority before the appropriate forum i.e., the learned Labour Court which allowed his petition but the said order was challenged by the respondent Department in Labour Appeal No. 449 of 2006 before the learned High Court and the learned High Court allowed the appeal on the ground that since the respondent Company was owned by the Federal Government and being a statutory body, its employees aggrieved of an order of departmental authority had to challenge the same before the Federal Service Tribunal and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. This order, according to learned counsel, is not tenable. Adds that when petitioner moved the Service Tribunal, his appeal has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide the impugned judgment on the ground reproduced in para 1 above.
3. On court query, learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to dispute that respondent Company is not statutory body and that the Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we were inclined to dispose of the matter with the observation that the petitioner may avail the remedy of review jurisdiction before the learned High Court but before we could sign the order, we found that the order of the High Court is dated 27-3-2008. The review petition might be time-barred and even otherwise, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal for having no jurisdiction. In these circumstances, we are inclined to grant leave inter alia to consider as to whether the learned High Court could have allowed the appeal of respondent shortly on the ground that Labour Court had no jurisdiction and whether the confusion over jurisdiction would not entitle the petitioner to seek condonation of delay in challenging the said order. S.A.K./R-4/SC Leave granted.