2008 SCMR 725 (PLP)
CHIEF EXECUTIVE PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LIMITED/CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL PRESS TRUST, ISLAMABAD — Petitioner Versus JAMIL-UR-REHMAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 SCMR 725 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | CHIEF EXECUTIVE PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LIMITED/CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL PRESS TRUST, ISLAMABAD — Petitioner Versus JAMIL-UR-REHMAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 SCMR 725 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 SCMR 725 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 SCMR 725 (PLP) (CHIEF EXECUTIVE PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LIMITED/CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL PRESS TRUST, ISLAMABAD — Petitioner Versus JAMIL-UR-REHMAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ozair Chughtai, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner in both Petitions).
- Sh. Khizar Hayat, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Talib Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent No.1 (in both Petitions).
- M. Rafiq Shad, Advocate Supreme Court and A.H. Masood, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.2 (in both Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 11th May, 2005.
- ----S. 4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Dismissal from service---Employees were dismissed from service simply on remaining absent from duty for two hours in case of one employee and for seven hours in case of the other---Service Tribunal set aside orders terminating services of said two employees and remanded case to employer for fresh proceedings in accordance with law to be held by a fair and impartial officer of the employer---Employer could not point out any illegality or infirmity in impugned judgment of Tribunal which could qualify. petitioner for grant of leave to appeal in terms of the Art.212(3) of the Constitution---Disciplinary proceedings against employees had been held by a privately engaged Advocate whose impartiality and independence was found to be open to exception---No exception could be taken to opinion of Tribunal or to impugned judgment which had left the employer free to hold fresh proceedings in the matter to determine the guilt or otherwise of the employees---Employer having dragged employees unnecessarily into litigation, employer was directed to pay costs to the employees.
- 3. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner in both these petitions at some length who could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the said impugned judgment which could have qualified the petitioner for the grant of leave in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution. As has been noticed above, the disciplinary proceedings against the private respondents had been held by a privately engaged Advocate whose impartiality and independence was found to be open to exception. No exception could be taken to the above-noticed opinion of the learned Tribunal or to the impugned judgment which had left the employer free to hold fresh proceedings in the matter to determine the guilt or otherwise of the said employees.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 27-7-2004 of the Federal Service Tribunal at Lahore, passed in Appeals Nos.713 and 714(L) of 1998).
S. 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Employees were dismissed from service simply on remaining absent from duty for two hours in case of one employee and for seven hours in case of the other
Service Tribunal set aside orders terminating services of said two employees and remanded case to employer for fresh proceedings in accordance with law to be held by a fair and impartial officer of the employer
Employer could not point out any illegality or infirmity in impugned judgment of Tribunal which could qualify. petitioner for grant of leave to appeal in terms of the Art.212(3) of the Constitution
Disciplinary proceedings against employees had been held by a privately engaged Advocate whose impartiality and independence was found to be open to exception
No exception could be taken to opinion of Tribunal or to impugned judgment which had left the employer free to hold fresh proceedings in the matter to determine the guilt or otherwise of the employees
Employer having dragged employees unnecessarily into litigation, employer was directed to pay costs to the employees.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.
This order shall dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.2708-L and 2709 of 2004 as they arise out of the same consolidated judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 27-7-2004 and involve similar questions of law and facts.
2. On the charge of remaining absent from duty for two hours in the case of the private respondent in C.P. No.2708-L of 2004 and for seven hours in the case of the private respondent in C.P. 2709-L of 2004, they were both dismissed from service. The matter remained pending with the learned Service Tribunal and the Honourable High Court on account of a controversy regarding jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal which was finally settled by the High Court through a judgment, dated 17-4-2002. The learned Tribunal then proceeded to pass the impugned judgment dated 27-7-2004 whereby the orders terminating the services of the said two respondents were set aside and the case was remanded back to the employer for fresh proceedings in accordance with law to be held by a fair and impartial officer of the said employer.
3. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner in both these petitions at some length who could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the said impugned judgment which could have qualified the petitioner for the grant of leave in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution. As has been noticed above, the disciplinary proceedings against the private respondents had been held by a privately engaged Advocate whose impartiality and independence was found to be open to exception. No exception could be taken to the above-noticed opinion of the learned Tribunal or to the impugned judgment which had left the employer free to hold fresh proceedings in the matter to determine the guilt or otherwise of the said employees.
4. Having thus, examined all aspects of the matter, we find no merit in these two petitions which are accordingly dismissed and leave refused.
5. We are of the opinion that the petitioners had unnecessarily dragged the private respondents into this litigation especially in these petitions before us and moreso when the learned Tribunal had left it open to the employer to take up fresh proceedings against the said employees. In view of such an irresponsible conduct on the part of the petitioner, we direct the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000 as costs to each of the private respondents which costs shall be paid to the said respondents within one month and the copies of the receipts acknowledging the said payment shall be sent to the Assistant Registrar of this Court within the said period of time for the information of this Bench. H.B.T./C-37/SC Petitions dismissed.