Sacked employees

2022 SCMR 472 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 7 & PreambleSacked employeesPre-requisites for reinstatement under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012 ('the 2012 Act')

To become eligible to get the relief of reinstatement, one has to fulfill (all) three conditions; first, the aggrieved person should be a regular employee; second, he must have the requisite qualification and experience for the post during the period from 01-11-1993 to 30-11-1996 and not later, and, third, he was dismissed, removed or terminated from service during the period from 01-11-1996 to 31-12-1998

Temporary/ad-hoc/contract employees have no vested right to claim reinstatement under the 2012 Act.

2022 PLC(CS) 837 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.7 & PreambleSacked employeesPre-requisites for reinstatement under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012 ('the 2012 Act')

To become eligible to get the relief of reinstatement, one has to fulfill (all) three conditions; first, the aggrieved person should be a regular employee; second, he must have the requisite qualification and experience for the post during the period from 01-11-1993 to 30-11-1996 and not later, and, third, he was dismissed, removed or terminated from service during the period from 01-11-1996 to 31-12-1998

Temporary/ad-hoc/contract employees have no vested right to claim reinstatement under the 2012 Act.

2019 PLC(CS) 882 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(f)(i) & 4Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance (XXIII of 2009), S. 3Reinstatement in serviceSacked employeesScope

Petitioners were appointed in a Corporation during years 1975 to 1984 and were released under Voluntary Retirement Scheme in year 1998

Petitioners sought their reinstatement on grounds that they had never opted for their release under Voluntary Retirement Scheme

Validity

Provisions of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2009 and Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 were applicable only to employees who fell within very limited category, i.e., recruited during November-1993 to November-1996 and removed during November-1996 to December-1998

Word used between two described periods was 'and' therefore, unless an employee of the Corporation could meet the two conditions, he was not entitled to benefit of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2009 and Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010

Action was taken against petitioners by the Corporation before its merger in an other Corporation

Nothing was available on record to show any mala fide on part of corporation for retiring petitioners from service

High Court declined to interfere in the matter under provisions of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2019 PLC(CS) 1516 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss.3(1), 2(f), 11 & 13Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5Sacked employeesTermination of serviceApplication for reinstatementRequirementsLimitationCondonation of delay

Employees filed constitutional petitions which were transmitted to the Review Board with the direction to treat the same as representations and decide in accordance with law

Review Board accepted petitions moved by the employees and reinstated them in service with effect from the date when they were terminated

Contention of employer Bank was that petitions filed by the employees were barred by time

Validity

Sacked employee could be reinstated under the provisions of Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010 only if such employee was appointed between 01-11-1993 to 30-11-1996 and dismissed, removed or terminated from service or whose contract period expired or was given a golden hand shake between 01-11-1996 to 12-10-1999

Services of present employees were discontinued by the Bank after 12-10-1999 and they did not fall in the category of employees who could be reinstated under the provisions of Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010

Sacked employee could file application within ninety days of the enactment of Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010 for reinstatement in service

None of the employees, in the present case, had filed a petition before Review Board within the time limit prescribed under Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010

Order passed by the High Court for transmitting petition to the Review Board did not absolve the employees from crossing the hurdle of limitation as provided in S.13(1) of Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010

Review Board should have dismissed the employees' applications for reinstatement if same had been moved beyond the limitation period of ninety days from the date of enactment of Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010

Provisions of Limitation Act, 1908 were not applicable to any proceedings under Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010

Review Board was not vested with the power to enlarge the limitation period within which petition could be preferred under S. 13(1) of Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010

Where limitation period for filing certain petition was provided in special law then delay in filing the same could not be condoned under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908

Petitions of employees for reinstatement before Review Board being time barred were not maintainable, in circumstances

None of the petitioners-employees were dismissed, removed or terminated from service between 01-11-1996 to 12-10-1999 and they could not have been reinstated in service

Impugned orders passed by the Review Board were without jurisdiction and lawful authority which were set aside

Employees would be at liberty to agitate their cases for reinstatement in service before the appropriate forum subject to law

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2018 PLC(CS)N 90 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 2Sacked employeesReinstatement in serviceScope

Contention of department was that employees did not possess the required qualification at the time of their initial appointment

Validity

Employees in question had obtained the required qualification after termination of their services, they were entitled to be reinstated under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012 like other similarly placed employees

Authorities were directed to reinstate the employees into service

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2018 PLC(CS)N 28 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 7Sacked employeesReinstatement into serviceAudi alteram partem, principle ofApplicability

Departmental Selection Committee recommended appointment of petitioners after determining their suitability and eligibility

No opportunity before dispensing with services of petitioners in violation of principles of natural justice was provided

Impugned orders for dispensing with the services of petitioners were illegal and untenable in the eye of law

Department was directed to reinstate the petitioners into their service

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2017 PLC(CS) 685 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 3Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act (XX of 2010), S.4Constitution of Pakistan, Art.25Sacked employeesReinstatementDiscrimination

Petitioners were Area Managers of State Life Insurance Corporation, who were terminated from service in years, 1997 and 1998

Petitioners sought their reinstatement under the provisions of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2009

Validity

Sales representatives, sales officers and sales managers were not employees of the Corporation against salary but their earning was based upon percentage payable to them proportionate to number of policies and clients they brought to the Insurance Corporation

Post of Area Manager was an employment against monthly salary with the Corporation against which any person was directly appointed by Corporation which could be based on his past performance and not by way of promotion from Sales Manager to Area Manager like other promotions in service

Petitioners were not promoted but appointed as Area Managers

State Life Insurance Corporation in compliance of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2009, issued publication in newspapers to reinstate 36 contract employees terminated during the period specified in Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2009

Petitioners were discriminated under Art.25 of the Constitution who were entitled to the benefit of S.3 of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2009 and S.4 of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010

High Court directed the Corporation to process applications of petitioners and give them benefit of the law

Constitutional petition was allowed under circumstances.

2016 PLC(CS) 411 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4 & 13Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionCivil serviceSacked employeesTermination of serviceDaily wage employeesSuccessive "gaps" in employment of daily wage employeeEffectEach of the petitioners was employed from the first period to the second period

Successive "gaps" in the employment were merely a device or ploy used by the Employer/Authority to avoid the labour legislation

Petitioners remained employed with the Authority throughout the period

No "gaps" and "breaks" existed in the period of employment of petitioners

Case of petitioners would fall within the ambit of Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010

Petitioners were declared to be sacked employees and they stood re-instated and regularized

Constitutional petition was accepted and Employer-Authority was directed to issue letter of reinstatement to the petitioners within a specified period and they shall also be entitled for payment of compensation computed mutatis mutandis

Each petitioner would also be entitled to all other benefits to which he might be expressly entitled by or under the Sacked Employees (Reinstatements) Act, 2010, but subject to S.19 of the said Act and shall not be entitled to any double benefit.

2014 PLC(CS) 737 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 2(f)Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3Intra-court appealSacked employeesGolden Handshake SchemeScopeEmployees who had opted retirement under golden handshake scheme, claimed their re-instatement as sacked employeesConstitutional petition filed by employees was acceptedAppellant/Bank filed Intra-court appeal

Employees had not been appointed between the dates as mentioned in the Preamble of Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010

Employees having voluntarily opted golden handshake scheme were precluded from being entitled for re-instatement under the Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010

Validity

Golden Hand Shake scheme was launched for voluntarily acceptance of its terms and conditions

Respondents/employees had independently exercised their free option by offering volunteer acceptance of scheme and had received all pecuniary benefits towards full and final settlement

Employees had also executed "No demand certificate" and had severed their relationship and lien with the appellant/bank once for all

Essential ingredients and pre-requisites of a valid "offer" and "acceptance" were fulfilled

None of the parties/beneficiaries of the golden handshake scheme was legally competent to rescind or revoke it at any subsequent event

Bank had become functus officio and could not be permitted to wriggle out of their obligations and solemn commitments

Employees' had exercised their option for golden handshake scheme were not entitled to their re-instatement

Intra-court appeal was allowed.

2014 PLC(CS) 737 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.2(f)Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionSacked employeesTime specific applicabilityScope

Employees' dates of appointment and relinquishment of their charge were much prior to the dates conspicuously specified in the Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010

Provisions of Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010 were totally alien and inapplicable to the case of such employees, being time specific.

2014 PLC(CS) 507 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 4(a)(b)Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance (II of 2009)' S.6Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionSacked employeesReinstatement and promotionPrinciples

Petitioners were employees of National Highway Authority and their grievance was that their path of promotion could not be blocked by contract employees reinstated over and above them furthermore they should be promoted first and then sacked employees should be absorbed on leftover seats

Validity

Reinstatement was categorized by Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2009 as well as Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010, in two heads i.e. in terms of Ordinance, a person in corporation or government service held post on contract against a regular post and his contract was extended at least once and he had been subsequently dismissed from service, such employee would be reinstated immediately and adjusted against regular post

Other limb of such provision of law dealt with person in corporation or government service appointed on contractual basis against a temporary post and was dismissed, removed or terminated before completion of his contract period, such person would be reinstated immediately for remaining portion of his contract

Contract employee against temporary post was to be reinstated for remaining portion of his contract and he could not be considered at par with all those contract employees who were employed against a regular post, such was the position until Sacked Employees Reinstatement Ordinance, 2009, was in force

Sacked employee appointed on permanent or temporary post; or regular or ad hoc post or otherwise in any corporation or government service against regular or temporary post, in terms of S.4(a) of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010, would be reinstated and regularized in regular service of the employee on one scale higher of his substantive scale, grade, cadre, group or post of designation, whatever the case might be, held by such employee at the time of his dismissal from service or at the time forced golden handshake was given to the sacked employee

Provisions of S.4(a) of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010, needed no clarification that it was not meant for an employee who was appointed purely on contract basis

Word "temporary" used in S.4(a) of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010, or the word "otherwise" could not be kept at par with the word "contract basis"

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.