Contract employment
Contract employment legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Provision of law [i.e. Regulation 21(1) of Regulations 2000] limiting contract service to a maximum of five years was challenged by the employees
High Court's omission to adjudicate upon the question of vires of the law
Effect and validity
'Sub-silentio', doctrine of
Applicability and scope
Incidence where a court decides a lis without appreciating or addressing a particular point of law raised before it
Legality
Decision rendered without addressing a specific question of law raised before it lacks authoritative weight
Supreme Court remanded the matter to High Court for fresh adjudication
Facts in brevity were that the petitioners (contract employees) were appointed on a contract basis in various posts within the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) after qualifying a merit-based recruitment process and thereafter challenged Regulation 21(1) of the revised CAA Service Regulations, 2019, which limited contract service to a maximum of five years, seeking declaration of their appointments as regular and the said Regulation as ultra vires the Constitution for infringing their fundamental rights
Petitioners' contracts were initially for two years and were extended periodically and later were denied further renewal
Petitioners (contract employees) contended that the posts they held were of a permanent nature, hence, their continued service warranted regularization, and the impugned regulation enabling fixed-term contracts for permanent posts was unreasonable and without statutory backing
The High Court while dismissing the petitions, confined itself to holding that CAA had no statutory rules, without adjudicating upon the plea of ultra vires raised against Regulation 21(1) of the Regulations, 2000
Held: It was an admitted position that the High Court neither considered the plea of vires of the Regulation under challenge nor discussed anything in this regard in the impugned judgment which completely ignored and overlooked the same
Therefore, doctrine of 'sub silentio' was applicable to the present matter since the impugned judgment was rendered without specifically and precisely avowing or attending to the question of law raised for determination
Impugned judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh adjudication
Civil petitions were converted into appeals and were allowed, in circumstances.
Provision of law [i.e. Regulation 21(1) of Regulations, 2000] limiting contract service to a maximum of five years was challenged by the employees
High Court's omission to adjudicate upon the question of vires of the law
Effect and validity
'Sub-silentio', doctrine of
Applicability and scope
Incidence where a court decides a lis without appreciating or addressing a particular point of law raised before it
Legality
Decision rendered without addressing a specific question of law raised before it lacks authoritative weight
Supreme Court remanded the matter to High Court for fresh adjudication
Facts in brevity were that the petitioners (contract employees) were appointed on a contract basis in various posts within the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) after qualifying a merit-based recruitment process and thereafter challenged Regulation 21(1) of the revised CAA Service Regulations, 2019, which limited contract service to a maximum of five years, seeking declaration of their appointments as regular and the said Regulation as ultra vires the Constitution for infringing their fundamental rights
Petitioners' contracts were initially for two years and were extended periodically and later were denied further renewal
Petitioners (contract employees) contended that the posts they held were of a permanent nature, hence, their continued service warranted regularization, and the impugned regulation enabling fixed-term contracts for permanent posts was unreasonable and without statutory backing
The High Court while dismissing the petitions, confined itself to holding that CAA had no statutory rules, without adjudicating upon the plea of ultra vires raised against Regulation 21(1) of the Regulations, 2000
Held: It was an admitted position that the High Court neither considered the plea of vires of the Regulation under challenge nor discussed anything in this regard in the impugned judgment which completely ignored and overlooked the same
Therefore, doctrine of 'sub silentio' was applicable to the present matter since the impugned judgment was rendered without specifically and precisely avowing or attending to the question of law raised for determination
Impugned judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh adjudication
Civil petitions were converted into appeals and were allowed, in circumstances.
Services of an ad hoc / contract / fix pay employee could only be regularized if the same was backed by law / statute / rules / regulations
Contract employee could neither maintain Constitutional petition for enforcement of terms and conditions of his service, nor for renewal of contract or for the extension of contract period of his employment
High Court declined to interfere in the matter
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
No sooner any project comes to an end, employees appointed on project posts and for the purposes of such project, can be shown the doors on winding up of the project
High Court cannot step into the shoes of appointing authority and cannot extend scope of a contract that has been signed by an employee
Such goes against spirit of concept of contract employment
When an employee accepts a post in a project, he is aware of the fact that project will come to an end on its completion or cessation of its funding (as the case may be) and with that, his employment will also come to an end
Forcing authorities to "accommodate or retain" such employees for an indefinite period or to absorb them, is not only a transgression of the powers vested with High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution, but is also a burden on the Government exchequer which the Court is not at liberty to place.
Employment of appellant was contractual in nature and as a contractual employee, appellant had no automatic right to continue her job unless same was specifically provided in law
As a contractual employee, relationship between appellant and respondent/Government of Punjab was governed by principle of master and servant
Appellant was to serve till the satisfaction of her master
Contract employee was debarred from approaching High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction for re-instatement or extension of contract
Only remedy available to contract employee was to file suit for damages alleging any breach of contract or failure to extend contract
Courts could not force employer to reinstate or extend contract of employee, even in case of any wrongful termination
When there was availability of alternate efficacious remedy/claim of damages/compensation, if any, to appellant/a litigant under law, constitutional jurisdiction of High Court was barred
Appellant failed to substantiate her case by giving valid grounds for setting aside termination order
Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Once a company is registered under Company Law and is so governed under the provisions of Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, funded by Federal Government or Provincial Government and/or fully controlled or owned by them, such company is amenable to jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution
Contract employment in Public Sector Companies and corporations falls within the scope of Public Employment, unlike pure "Master and Servant" relationship in institutions having no element of public involvement
Any breach of contract can be agitated in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution.
Petitioner was Chief Financial Officer and his services were terminated by Board of Directors on the allegation of misconduct
Plea raised by petitioner was that he was condemned unheard
Validity
Board of Directors did not discuss material produced by petitioner nor referred the same and ignored it the time of maintaining its earlier decision regarding termination of petitioner
Such act of Board of Directors showed bias towards petitioner
Petitioner could be removed from service but strictly in accordance with law and by providing him an opportunity of hearing
Opportunity of hearing was a fundamental right in order to ensure fairness, justness and transparency which could not be denied to him under any circumstances
When dismissal for removal of contract employee was result of allegations of misconduct even then he was to get a fair chance of hearing in order to vindicate his position
To achieve the goal of transparency, petitioner was to be issued a show cause notice with charge sheet in order to provide him a reasonable opportunity of defence, followed by an inquiry in order to keep him abreast of the allegations
High Court set aside termination letter issued by authorities but denied him remunerations under the principle of "no work no gain"
Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
Petitioner was working as Company Secretary with Trading Corporation of Pakistan who sought regularization of his service
Validity
Petitioner was a contractual employee having no vested right for regular appointment or to seek regularization of his service
Petitioner was debarred from invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Writ of mandamus could not be claimed as a matter of right
For issuance of direction in the nature of mandamus, there must be a legal right existing in favour of the person seeking writ of mandamus and a corresponding legal duty imposed upon public officer or authority against whom the writ was sought
Company Secretary of a public sector company under R.13 of Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013 was to be appointed by Board of that company
Petitioner did not have any vested right to seek regularization of his contractual service and he also did not acquire any legal right from appointment made by respondent company who accepted his employment on contract
No corresponding duty was cast on Trading Corporation of Pakistan to appoint petitioner on regular basis
High Court declined to grant writ of mandamus in favour of petitioner
Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Only remedy available to a contract employee was to file a suit for damages alleging breach of contract or failure to extend the contract.
Only remedy available to a contract employee was to file a suit for damages alleging breach of contract or failure to extend the contract.
Appellant was contract employee of a Cattle Market Management Company who was informed that period of his contract would not be extended
Opportunity of hearing
Single Judge of High Court declined to interfere in decision of the Company in constitutional jurisdiction
Reply to the letter was filed by appellant and he was provided opportunity to put across his point of view which he did, however, his explanation was not found satisfactory
Appellant, in circumstances, could not say that he had not been afforded opportunity of hearing
Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Single Judge of High Court as same had no illegality or legal infirmity and was in consonance with the spirit of law
Intra court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Employee continuously worked for about 10 years with employer who had issued two experience certificates as well as attendance sheets
Employer owned the employee to be his employee and single Judge of High Court relying on para.1(b) of the Sched. to Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 ordered regularization of the services of the employee
Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Single Judge of High Court as there was no illegality or jurisdictional error in the judgment
Intra-court appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Parties could not be allowed to drag the Court in the affairs according to their will and use them as tool to settle the score
Court was not to allow a wrong to continue even if the matter had been settled between the parties
When initial appointment was illegal then the appointing authority could not be allowed to settle the issue with the writ petitioner
Governor, the appointing authority, did not enjoy blanket immunity under Art. 85 of Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009
All executive acts and deeds were to be done by the Governor in good faith
Governor was to pass orders and issue notifications in due and proper exercise of jurisdiction and in accordance with law by application of independent and judicious mind uninfluenced by motivation/ consideration
Any action of Governor which was mala fide or colourable could not be regarded as an action in accordance with law
If Executive authority had not exercised its powers for making an appointment in just, fair and transparent manner and breached the trust vested in it then same would be amenable to writ jurisdiction of the Chief Court
Court could not compel either the President of Pakistan or Governor of a Province to exercise or not to exercise any power, perform or not to perform a duty
Immunity to the President and the Governor was personal
Aggrieved person could not be knocked out on technical grounds that remedy under Art.71(2) of Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 was not available to him
Aggrieved person could file a writ of quo warranto to challenge the eligibility of a person holding a public office for which he was otherwise not eligible to be appointed
Chief Court, in circumstances, was competent to examine if statutory provision had been violated in making the appointment of such person
Court should not close its eyes on the grounds of mere technicalities
Chief Court had powers to issue a declaration with regard to any act done or proceedings taken within its territorial jurisdiction by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of a Province or a local authority to be without lawful authority or of no legal effect
Appointment of an ineligible person for an office/institution could not be protected due to immunity available to the Governor
When an official act of the Governor was challenged on the ground of mala fide then immunity provided under Art. 85 of Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 could not come for his rescue
Mere fact that certain rules/regulations were framed without approval of Federal/Provincial Government was not the sole criteria to term them as non-statutory but it was their nature and area of efficacy which were determinative of their status
Violation of any rule in the present case had not been challenged by the petitioners but they had challenged the appointment of a person which could be challenged and adjudicated upon by the Chief Court under its writ jurisdiction
Appointing an ineligible person in flagrant and wanton disregard of settled procedure was itself a despicable act detrimental not only for the one being victimized but for the general society as well
Court was custodian of Fundamental Rights of the people
Appointment of respondent was declared illegal, unwarranted and without lawful authority
Actions taken and orders issued by the said authorities in official capacity were also declared illegal and without lawful authority and void ab initio
Writ was disposed of accordingly.
Contention of plaintiff-employee was that defendant-company had caused financial loss to him by terminating his service contract illegally
Validity
Plaintiff-employee was bound to establish additional assurance or representations made to him by the defendant-company
Nothing was on record apart from the terms and conditions of appointment of plaintiff-employee
Nothing was on record that termination from service had resulted into breach of any assurance or promise
Principle of master and servant was involved in the present case
Only remedy for the plaintiff-employee was to file suit for damages in circumstances
Plaintiff-employee could not ask for restitution of his service in circumstances
Burden to prove his entitlement to the reliefs on the grounds as stated in the plaint was on the plaintiff-employee
Any compensation or damages could not be awarded to the plaintiff-employee for a loss or damage which had been sustained by him indirectly by reason of breach of contract
Plaintiff-employee was bound to show that defendant's action of terminating his service was against the terms and conditions of contract
Plaintiff and defendant were in equal position to choose to terminate service by giving a 30 days written notice in advance or making the payment in lieu thereof
Defendant-company was within the domain to terminate service of plaintiff-employee by resorting to scheme of appointment letter
Defendant-company had not committed any breach of contract in circumstances
Thirty days period contained in the appointment letter was too short for a person to find out a new job in the private sector
Period of 120 days was reasonable within which a person could secure a new job of the same stature in the private sector
Plaintiff-employee was entitled to either 120 days written notice in advance or payment in lieu thereof
Plaintiff-employee had received 30 days salary in lieu of the stipulated notice and other emoluments and deductions
Plaintiff-employee was directed to be paid the salary of remaining 90 days and other emoluments as per his entitlement
Suit was partly decreed accordingly.
Contract employee could neither claim the status of permanent employee nor would have vested right to the appointment on permanent basis merely for having served the department for a long period
Contract of employee had been over and he was no more in service
If an employee was dismissed or removed in breach of contractual requirement then he might recover damages and could not claim reinstatement in service
Right to employ an employee would vest with the employer only and employee could not claim the vested right to be appointed
Petitioner had failed to establish any right which had been infringed by the department
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Chief Minister set aside the termination order and directed the department to reinstate the petitioners in service but department did not comply with the said order of Chief Minister
Validity
Disputed appointments had been made without opening the vacancies for all through advertisement
Petitioners were initially appointed on contingent basis and thereafter their services were brought into permanent footing
Authority which made the illegal appointments had not been penalized
Chief Court observed that government should avoid contract appointment and ensure that opportunity for obtaining job had been provided to eligible persons
Chief Minister had reinstated the petitioners in their services and said order had not been assailed by the department
Department was directed to reinstate the petitioner in compliance of order of Chief Minister with all back benefits
Writ petition was allowed in circumstance.
Respondents participated in the selection process, whereafter they were issued appointment letters and joined their respective services
Subsequently respondents were issued termination letters on the basis that their appointments had been made without observing codal formalities, and the official who had signed their appointment letters was not competent to do so
Respondents filed constitutional petition before the High Court, which was allowed and impugned termination orders were set aside with the directions that a Committee should be constituted to re-process the case of each respondent; that in case any of the respondents had submitted a fake document, or there was any criminal case pending against him, or he was not a resident of the area for which recruitments were made or otherwise did not meet the eligibility criteria provided in the advertisement on the basis of which he was appointed, such respondent shall not be inducted into service, and that all other respondents shall be deemed to have been reinstated into service with effect from the date on which their services were terminated
Validity
Such order passed by the High Court was absolutely valid and it had been left to the department itself to scrutinize/examine the eligibility of the respondents
High Court gave directions to retain those who passed the eligibility test by applying the rule of locus poenitentiae, notwithstanding that there was some irregularity in the process of selection, may be on account of one of the members (of the recruitment committee) who was said to be incompetent to act as appointing authority, and those who were not eligible/qualified were to be relieved from service
Department had to act fairly in terms of the directions of the High Court and take further action
Supreme Court directed that re-selection process, as mandated by the High Court, should be completed within a period of two months without fail
Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Respondents participated in the selection process, whereafter they were issued appointment letters and joined their respective services
Subsequently respondents were issued termination letters on the basis that their appointments had been made without observing codal formalities, and the official who had signed their appointment letters was not competent to do so
Respondents filed constitutional petition before the High Court, which was allowed and impugned termination orders were set aside with the directions that a Committee should be constituted to re-process the case of each respondent; that in case any of the respondents had submitted a fake document, or there was any criminal case pending against him, or he was not a resident of the area for which recruitments were made or otherwise did not meet the eligibility criteria provided in the advertisement on the basis of which he was appointed, such respondent shall not be inducted into service, and that all other respondents shall be deemed to have been reinstated into service with effect from the date on which their services were terminated
Validity
Such order passed by the High Court was absolutely valid and it had been left to the department itself to scrutinize/examine the eligibility of the respondents
High Court gave directions to retain those who passed the eligibility test by applying the rule of locus poenitentiae, notwithstanding that there was some irregularity in the process of selection, may be on account of one of the members (of the recruitment committee) who was said to be incompetent to act as appointing authority, and those who were not eligible/qualified were to be relieved from service
Department had to act fairly in terms of the directions of the High Court and take further action
Supreme Court directed that re-selection process, as mandated by the High Court, should be completed within a period of two months without fail
Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
"Contract employment", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124952794
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Contract employment"
P L D 1990 Supreme Court 719
JAMALUR REHMAN DURRANI ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION and another ‑‑‑ Respondents
Court:2018 P L C (C
Mrs. JAMSHAID NAQVI Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through
Court: High Court (AJ&K)2021 P L C (C
ABDUL WAJID Versus NATIONAL DATABASE AND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY and others
Court: Lahore High Court2019 P L C (C
IFRA ASJAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others
Court: Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Bench)2014 P L C (C
ZAHEER AHMED SHEIKH Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary and 5 others
Court: High Court (AJ&K)2012 P L C (C
CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION (PIAC), KARACHI and 3 others Versus TAYYABA HASNAIN and another
Court: Islamabad High Court2013 P L C (C
Kh. ABDUL HAMID Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary and 5 others
Court: High Court (AJ&K)2019 P L C (C
TAHIR PERVAIZ, DIRECTOR-GENERAL, LEGAL AFFAIRS, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 6 others
Court: Lahore High CourtP L D 2019 Lahore 178
TAHIR PERVAIZ, DIRECTOR-GENERAL, LEGAL AFFAIRS, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 6 others — Respondents
Court: High Court2025 P L C (C
NADEEM AHMED and others Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, through Secretary, Sports, Tourism, Archaeology, Museums and Youth Affairs Department, Peshawar and others
Court: Peshawar High Court