2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
AKIF QAMAR and another Versus GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION) PASSCO and others
| Citation | 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ |
| Parties | AKIF QAMAR and another Versus GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION) PASSCO and others |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (AKIF QAMAR and another Versus GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION) PASSCO and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-On-Record for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Akram Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-On-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st August, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 2-4-2001 passed in Appeals Nos. 117(L) and 118(L) of 1999).
S. 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Petitioners, who were reinstated in service by Service Tribunal, had claimed back-benefits on ground that once Service Tribunal had found departmental order to be without lawful authority, award of back-benefits would follow automatically
Petitioners had not pleaded before Service Tribunal that during the period they were out of job, they did not do any business or were not gainfully employed anywhere else
Even before Tribunal, no specific plea was taken that petitioners being idle and out of job, could be awarded back-benefits for the period during which they remained out of job
Contention that in the event of declaration of departmental order as contrary to law or without lawful authority, back-benefits in each case would follow automatically, was repelled
Employee had to demonstrate and plead before original forum that he had not been making any earning during period when he remained out of job
In absence of any specific pleading and the fact that issue was not expressly agitated before Tribunal, it could not be presumed that petitioners remained idle, sitting at home and doing nothing during period when they remained out of job
Even otherwise case being of individual grievance and essentially a question of fact, no question of law of public importance was spelt out in the circumstances with the result that both petitions for leave to appeal were without any substance and liable to be dismissed. Pakistan v. Mr. A.V. Issacs PLD 1970 SC 415; Qadeer Ahmad v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal PLD 1990 SC 787; N.B.P. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal 1993 SCMR 105 and Abdul Hafeez Abbasi v. Managing Director, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation 2002 SCMR 1034 ref.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Petitioners in both cases seek leave to appeal against order of the Federal Service Tribunal reinstating both of them in service without back benefits. Petitioners have been reinstated in service and the question agitated before us in these petitions is that, once the Tribunal found the departmental order to be without lawful authority, award of back benefits would follow automatically whereas the Tribunal has not recorded any reason for withholding such benefits.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length and examined the memo. of petitions filed by the petitioners as well as the judgment rendered by the Tribunal. It is nowhere pleaded in the appeals of the petitioners before the Tribunal that, during the period they were out of job, they did not do any business or were not gainfully employed anywhere else. Even before the Tribunal, no specific plea was taken that the petitioners being idle and out of job may be awarded the back benefits for the period during which they remained out of job. We are not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel that in the event of declaration of departmental order as contrary to law or without lawful authority back benefits in each case would follow automatically. Learned counsel has cited Pakistan v. Mr. A.V. Issacs PLD 1970 SC 415, Qadeer Ahmad v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal PLD 1990 SC 787 and N.B.P. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal 1993 SCMR 105 but the position has been reviewed in Abdul Hafeez Abbasi v. Managing Director, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation 2002 SCMR 1034, which fully supports our view as it has been held in this case that an employee has to demonstrate that he has not been making any earning during the period when he remained out of job and to plea such fact before the original forum. In the absence of any specific pleading and the fact that the issue was not expressly agitated before the Tribunal, we are not called upon to presume and record a finding of fact that both the petitioners remained idle, sitting at home and doing nothing during the period when they remained out of job.
3. Even otherwise this being a case of individual grievance and essentially a question of fact, no question of law of public importance is spelt out in the circumstances with the result that both the petitions are without any substance and hereby dismissed. H.B.T./A-125/SC Petition dismissed.