SCMR 2006

2006 PLP 1894 (SCMR)

RACTOR COMSATS — Petitioner Versus GHULAM UMAR KAZI — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition No.3 of 2006, decided on 20th April, 2006.
Honorable Judges
Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2006 PLP 1894 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ
Parties RACTOR COMSATS — Petitioner Versus GHULAM UMAR KAZI — Respondent
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1894 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1894 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1894 (SCMR) (RACTOR COMSATS — Petitioner Versus GHULAM UMAR KAZI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing: 20th April, 2006.

Headnotes / Summary

Arts. 185(3), 199 & 212

Civil service

Respondents were originally employees of a department which was under administrative control of Federal Minister for Industries and Production, which finally was transferred to the petitioner-Institute

Respondents, who were not paid their monthly salaries, filed constitutional petition before High Court, which was accepted and petitioner-Institute and others were directed to pay salaries to respondents within one month

Petitioner-Institute filed petition for leave to appeal against decision of the High Court and contended that since grievance of respondents was germane to their terms and conditions of service, same would fall within exclusive jurisdiction of Federal Service Tribunal in terms of Art.212 of the Constitution

Validity

Order of High Court should have been complied with as no order of Supreme Court suspending operation of same was passed

Respondents could not be kept hanging in the balance without any fault on their part, if procedural steps at the inter-departmental level for their permanent absorption in petitioner-Institute had not been finalized

High Court seemed to have done substantial justice in directing payment of salaries to respondents in order to save them from starvation

Supreme Court observed that question of ouster of jurisdiction of High Court on the touchstone of Art.212 of the Constitution could be examined in some other appropriate case--Impugned order was just and fair to which no interference was called for

Leave to appeal was refused.

Judgment & Decree

FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, - J.

The respondents Nos.1 to 13 were originally the employees of the PETROMAN, a Human Resource Development Division of Petroleum Refining and Petro Chemical Corporation (PERAC) which was under the administrative control of the Federal Minister of Industries and Production. Subsequently, PERAC was placed under. Ministry of Information Technology in 2000 with all its assets, liabilities and staff. The Joint Secretary in the Information Technology and Telecommunications Division was delegated the power which were earlier conferred on the Chairman PERAC. Later a summary was also put up before the Prime Minister for the transfer of the PETROMAN from the Minister of Information Technology to COMSATS (the petitioner), a body established by the Federal Government, administered by the Ministry of Science and Technology. The Secretary of the Ministry of Science and Technology also put up a note to the Prime Minister that the employees would be absorbed in the petitioner's institution on the terms and conditions of the employees which were not to be less favourable than those available to then in PETROMAN. The respondents Nos.1 to 13 were not being paid their monthly salaries. Therefore, they filed Constitution Petition No.D-1064 of 2005 before the High Court of Sindh, Karachi which was accepted by learned Division Bench, by the impugned order, dated 2-11-2005. The petitioner and respondents Nos.14 to 18 were directed to pay the salaries to the respondents Nos.1 to 13 within one month.

2. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the grievance of the respondents Nos.1 to 13 was germane to their terms and conditions of service which would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal in terms of Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It was further submitted that the transfer of PETROMAN or PERAC to the petitioner had not so far been finally made and that the Board of Governors .of the COMSATS would take final decision as to the absorption of respondents Nos.1 to 13 and other employees of PETROMAN Institute.

3. We have heard the learned counsel at some length and have also perused the available record. We assume that the order, dated 2-11-2005 of the learned Division Bench of the High Court must have been complied with as no order of this Court suspending the operation of the same was passed. The respondents Nos.1 to 13 could not be kept hanging in the balance without any fault on their part if the procedural steps at the inter-departmental level for their permanent absorption in the COMSATS Institute of Ministry of Information Technology, Islamabad had been finalized. The High Court seems to have done substantial justice in directing the payment of salaries to the respondents Nos.1 to 13 in order to save them from starvation. The question of ouster of jurisdiction of High Court on the touchstone of Article 212 of the Constitution may be examined in some other appropriate case. The impugned order is just and fair to which no interference is called for. Even otherwise, this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. H.B.T./R-15/SC Petition dismissed.