2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SHAMSUZZAMAN and others Versus Messrs PAKISTAN STEEL FABRICATING CO. LTD. through Chief Executive, Bin Qasim, Karachi and another
| Citation | 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Akbar M. Memon and Nazar Muhammad Shaikh, Members |
| Parties | SHAMSUZZAMAN and others Versus Messrs PAKISTAN STEEL FABRICATING CO. LTD. through Chief Executive, Bin Qasim, Karachi and another |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Akbar M. Memon and Nazar Muhammad Shaikh, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SHAMSUZZAMAN and others Versus Messrs PAKISTAN STEEL FABRICATING CO. LTD. through Chief Executive, Bin Qasim, Karachi and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ashraf Khan and Shafiq Qureshi for Appellants.
- Zahid Hamid, Dilawar Hussain and Asim Iqbal for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd February, 2003.
- 4. Mr. Dilawar Hussain learned counsel for respondent No.1 has argued that there is no work in the respondents-Company and that on account of shortage of work the staff was sitting idle due to which termination orders were issued. He has contended that the termination orders have been issued as per Service Regulations of the respondents-Company which authorises the respondent to terminate the service of its employees on 3 months notice.
- 5. Mr. Asim Iqbal learned counsel for respondent No. 1 in Appeal No.370(K)(CE) of 2000 and onwards has straightaway argued that the working condition of the respondent No.2 is to be seen. At the same time he has contended that the status of the appellants at the time of their appointment has to be seen. He has contended that very appointments were made on contract basis, as such, they will have to be dealt with according to the terms and conditions of the contract. He has contended that there is no work at all, as such respondent No. 1 is not working properly. He has also contended that the terms and conditions of the appointment letter were accepted by the appellants and the termination is according to the terms and conditions as envisaged therein. Lastly he has contended that the appeals are misconceived and time-barred. Giving reference of Appeal No.372(K)(CE) of 2000 he has contended that the termination letter was issued on 2-2-2000 whereas service appeal was filed on 5-6-2000. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on 1999 SCMR 1997.
- 6. Mr. Zahid Hamid learned counsel for respondent No.2 has argued that the termination order was issued by respondent No. 1. He has also contended that the No. 1, as such, they cannot claim to be the servants of respondent No.2. He has contended that how the appellants will be able to prove that they were not political appointees until and unless they file which affidavit and even for the purpose of alleging mala fides the appellants are required to file affidavits. He has also contended that the departmental appeals were not properly addressed and since the position of the appellants was that of master and servant they could have been removed from service by the respondent No. 1. At the same time he has contended that delay in disposal of appeal is not on the part of the respondents, as such, the appellants are not entitled to the concession of back-benefit.
Headnotes / Summary
Services of civil servants were terminated without issuing them show-cause notice or holding inquiry, simply on the ground that their services were no longer required
Said civil servants were not alleged to be disqualified, inefficient or corrupt
Even after so-called closure of establishment, Authorities had appointed so many persons, some on monthly basis and some on daily wages
If Authorities wanted to reduce strength of civil servants for the sake of reorganization or for reducing expenditure of establishment, then after closure of establishment new persons should have not been appointed
Such act of Authorities had shown that work in the establishment was still going on and it was wrong to say that there was total closure of establishment
Civil servants who were terminated on ground of being no longer required, having been targeted by Authorities on pick and choose formula deserved to be reinstated
Order of terminating services of civil servants, were set aside and they were ordered to be reinstated in service. 2002 SCMR 1934; 1999 SCMR 1997 and 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1660 ref.
Judgment & Decree
"MUNIR A. SHEIKH J.
Leave is sought against the judgment dated 3-3 2001 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi through which appeal filed by respondent No.1 against the order of his termination from Service, are accepted and he has been ordered to be re-instated in service with all back-benefits. (2) The order of termination of service of respondent No. 1 has been set aside by the Tribunal on the ground firstly that decision of the Cabinet Division was not followed in letter and spirit and further that if there was any reed to decrease the strength of the employees on account of economy drive, the respondent has been discriminated against inasmuch as there Was element of pick and choose, for after terminating of his service, as many as 112 persons were further employed. (3) There is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that order of termination of service of respondent No.1 was passed under the Service Rules framed by the Board of petitioner's Corporation and not on the charge of corruption, therefore, it was a case of termination implicit. (4) The judgment of the Tribunal does not suffer from an infirmity, therefore, this petition merit less in hereby dismissed and leave refused".
12. Taking into consideration all the facts in both these appeals, we are of the view that these appellants who were terminated on the ground of no longer required were targeted by the respondents on pick and choose exercise, as such, they deserve re-instatement whereby the impugned order dated 1-2-2000 and 2-2-2000 is hereby ordered to be set aside. We, while, allowing all Appeals, excepting 370(K)(CE) of 2000 and 383(K)(CE) of 2000 direct the respondents to re-instate the appellants on the same positions from which they were terminated with all back-benefits.
13. There will be no orders as to costs. Parties be informed accordingly. H.B.T./210/FST/ Appeal allowed.