PLC 1995

1995 PLP 230 (PLC)

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and 2 others Versus IRRIGATION TUBEWELL WORKERS' UNION and another

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition No. 20‑E of 1993, decided on 6th December, 1994.
Honorable Judges
Fazal Ilahi Khan and Fazal Karim, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1995 PLP 230 (PLC)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Fazal Ilahi Khan and Fazal Karim, JJ
Parties SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and 2 others Versus IRRIGATION TUBEWELL WORKERS' UNION and another
Primary Law Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII or 1969)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 230 (PLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII or 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 230 (PLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Fazal Ilahi Khan and Fazal Karim, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 230 (PLC) (SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and 2 others Versus IRRIGATION TUBEWELL WORKERS' UNION and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII or 1969)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
  • S. Abul Asim Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 6th December, 1994.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment dated 20‑10‑1993 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 253/83). ‑‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973).,Arts 212 & 199‑‑‑Jurisdiction, bar under Art. 212‑‑‑Employees of Statutory Corporation‑‑‑Transfer to Irrigation Department of Punjab‑‑‑Such employees opted to work on NPS‑2 which was being drawn by other employees of Irrigation Department in the same category of employment‑‑‑Labour Court on delayed application of employees declared such employees to be entitled to NPS‑4‑‑‑Labour Appellate Tribunal accepting appeal of Irrigation Department mainly for the reason that such employees had given undertaking to draw the same pay as was payable to other employees in the same cadre and. that grievance petition was filed long after the fixation of their pay scale in question‑‑‑High Court setting aside judgment of Labour Appellate Tribunal and directing Irrigation Department to pay to such employee .the same pay scale which they were drawing when they were employees of Statutory Corporation‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether such employees could be held entitled to the same pay on their transfer and absorption in the same cadre in Irrigation Department‑in NPS‑2 after they had opted for it and acquiesced in same for years: and as to whether High Court could exercise jurisdiction in view of the bar of Art. 212 of the Constitution.

Judgment & Decree

Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners. S. Abul Asim Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th December, 1994. FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is prayed for against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20th October, 1993 in Writ Petition No.253 of 1983. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the respondent Union Members were employed as Tube well Operators by the WAPDA on work charge basis in National Pay Scale No.4. They were working as such and in the year 1978 when the project in question was handed over to the‑Irrigation Department alongwith the staff employed therein. However, at the time of such transfer the question of fixation of their pay as tube well operators arose as WAPDA had recruited tube well operators in National Pay Scale No.4 while on the other hand the Irrigation Department had employed their Operators in Pay Scale No.2. Such being the case in order to void their termination from service on such transfer, they opted for acceptance of their pay in National Pay Scale No.2. Accordingly, they were allowed Scale No.2 and were paid according to tube well operators scales of the Irrigation Department. The petitioners, however, after considerable delay filed petition under section 25‑A(1) of the I.R.O, 1969 which was accepted on r6‑11‑1980. it was held that petitioners were entitled to National Pay Scale No.4. An appeal against this judgment was made before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was accepted mainly for the reason that the transfer having taken place in the year 1978 and respondents/petitioner having given undertaking to draw the same pay as was payable to the employees in the same cadre in the Irrigation. Department, the grievance petition filed beyond the period after fixation of their pay in the Irrigation Department, set aside the order of the Labour Court and dismissed the petition. The aforementioned order of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal was challenged in Constitution Petition No.253 of 1983 which was allowed by the learned High Court by judgment dated 20‑10‑1993 and petitioners were directed that respondents be paid their pay from the date of their absorption from the Irrigation Department in the Punjab Government which they were drawing in WAPDA prior to their absorption in accordance with the decision taken on 28‑4‑1982. Leave is granted to consider; whether, the work charge employees could be held entitled to the same pay on their transfer and absorption in the same cadre of the Irrigation Department in NPS‑2 after they had opted for it and acquiescence for years and as to whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction in the manner irrespective of the bar of Article 212(2) of the Constitution. A.A./S‑919/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? Leave granted.