Summary: Javed Iqbal, the respondent, was employed as a Bio-Medical Engineer on a contract basis with the Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (PESSI), Lahore, since 04.02.2009. His contract was extended periodically. However, unlike other contract employees, Iqbal was not regularized. He filed Writ Petition, during which he was granted interim relief that his services would not be terminated until further notice. Despite this, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, leading to his suspension and eventually dismissal from service on 05.05.2021. His departmental appeal against the dismissal was rejected on 21.03.2022. --- The main issue was whether the disciplinary actions taken against the respondent, leading to his dismissal and the subsequent rejection of his appeal, were justifiable in light of the interim relief granted by the High Court and the procedural and substantive aspects of his employment and dismissal --- The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the Lahore High Court's judgment that reinstated Javed Iqbal with all back benefits and directed the consideration of his regularization. ---The Supreme Court found no irregularity or perversity in the High Court's judgments. It noted that the allegations against Iqbal regarding poor performance and misconduct were not substantiated by evidence, as his performance evaluations from 2009 to 2020 were satisfactory. The Court also highlighted the mala fide intentions of the petitioners, evidenced by the timing of the disciplinary actions, which were initiated after Iqbal had sought legal redress. Furthermore, the Court observed that the High Court had thoroughly addressed all legal and factual aspects of the case. --- The judgment underscores the importance of fair and transparent disciplinary proceedings, especially when an employee is under the protection of interim relief granted by a court. It also emphasizes the need for employers to substantiate allegations against employees with clear and convincing evidence. --- This case reaffirms the judiciary's role in protecting employee rights against arbitrary and unjust disciplinary actions, particularly in the context of contractual employment within public institutions. It also highlights the need for administrative bodies to act in good faith and adhere to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Summary: [1) Due to winding up of Vigilance Directorate, the contractual service of the petitioner was dispensed with on 30.6.2006. The contract employees in the relation of master and servant have no vested right to seek regularization without any statutory backing. (2) For newly created Cell, posts were advertised on 18.2.2007, the petitioner applied in the new recruitment process but found over age but he never applied for age relaxation to the competent authority as per Rules. (3) The direction for regularization cannot be issued unless the employee is appointed in accordance with relevant rules and against the regular sanctioned vacant posts] The petitioner argued that the rules regarding relaxation of the upper age limit should apply to his case for permanent absorption in the Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluation Cell. He claimed that he was within the prescribed age limit as per the Prime Minister's Directive dated May 30, 2006, and the Initial Appointment to Civil Posts (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1993. The petitioner also mentioned letters and notifications related to the regularisation of other contractual employees in different departments, which were issued in 2011. The Supreme Court examined the facts of the case and discussed the petitioner's arguments. It found that the Vigilance Directorate had been wound up as per the Prime Minister's approval, and the petitioner's contractual services were terminated in 2006. The Court stated that the letter dated May 30, 2006, did not explicitly indicate whether it applied to contractual or permanent employees. It emphasised that suitability and fitness were essential criteria for absorption in the newly created Cell. The Court further noted that the petitioner had filed a writ petition in the High Court for the implementation of the Labour Court judgment, which was not within the jurisdiction of the High Court. It clarified that the appropriate course of action, if the petitioner believed the directions of the Labour Court were violated, would have been to approach the Labour Court or the Labour Appellate Tribunal. Based on previous legal precedents, the Supreme Court held that contractual employees do not have a vested right to regularization unless specifically provided for by law. It stated that contractual employees serve at the pleasure of their employer and cannot claim reinstatement unless wrongful termination is proven. The Court highlighted that the High Court's writ or constitutional jurisdiction could not be invoked by a contractual employee of a statutory organization. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition, stating that the petitioner did not have a vested right to be permanently absorbed and that the Labour Court's judgment did not guarantee such rights.

Summary: (a) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)---- ----Ss. 2(xxxiii) & 33---Workman/worker---Qasid and typist employed by ZTBL---Status---Employees were working as Qasid and Typists and also held offices of President, Senior Vice President and General Secretary of registered CBA/Union---Such employees were not engaged in managerial or administrative capacity and had no authority to hire or fire employees---Nature of duties, not mere designation, determines whether an employee is a workman---Employees fell within definition of “worker”/“workman” under S.2(xxxiii), Industrial Relations Act, 2012. Cited Cases: • National Bank of Pakistan v. Anwar Shah 2015 SCMR 434 • Ganga R. Madhani v. Standard Bank Limited 1985 SCMR 1511 • All Pakistan SRBC Workers’ Union v. National Industrial Relations Commission 2015 PLC 210 • Sadiq Ali Khan v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal PLD 1994 SC 273 (b) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)---- ----Ss. 2(xvi), 2(xxxiii) & 33---Industrial dispute---Termination of union office-bearers---Jurisdiction of NIRC---Employees were dismissed for alleged absence during working hours and participation in CBA/trade union meetings---Show-cause notices and charge-sheets themselves referred to trade union activities and alleged violation of S.27-B of Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962---Dispute was not merely an individual service dispute but arose out of trade union activity; therefore, NIRC validly exercised jurisdiction over grievance petitions under S.33, IRA, 2012. (c) Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962)---- ----S. 27-B---Trade union activities in bank---Alleged violation---Effect---ZTBL alleged that employees violated S.27-B by attending/holding CBA meetings during working hours---Employees contended no meeting/activity was held on bank premises and they were victimized for union activities---Where termination was based on alleged trade union activities, matter assumed character of industrial dispute triable by NIRC. (d) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)---- ----S. 33---Grievance petition---Termination for union activity---Maintainability---Employees challenged dismissal orders before NIRC alleging victimization for contesting unfair labour practices and participating in CBA meetings---Single Member NIRC set aside termination orders and Full Bench upheld same---High Court held that grievance petitions were maintainable because employees were workmen and dispute related to industrial/trade union activity. (e) ADBP Officer Service (Efficiency and Discipline) Regulations, 1975---- ----Reg. 2(4)---Misconduct---Scope---Misconduct means conduct prejudicial to good order or service discipline, contrary to conduct regulations, unbecoming of an officer/gentleman, or bringing political/outside influence in service matters---Record did not disclose allegations of inefficiency, dishonesty, willful negligence or misconduct in performance of official duties---Employees were proceeded against mainly for alleged absence due CBA activities; hence disciplinary action was linked with industrial/trade union dispute. (f) Service law / Labour law---- ----Union office-bearers---Absence from duty for CBA meeting---Dismissal from service---Effect---Total absence alleged against employees was limited, and explanation was that absence was due to CBA meeting rather than agitation against bank---Such explanation and context of union office-holding were relevant factors considered by NIRC while holding dismissal illegal and unlawful. (g) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)---- ----NIRC jurisdiction---Statutory/non-statutory rules of ZTBL---Plea rejected---ZTBL contended that its service rules were statutory and therefore remedy lay before High Court under Art.199 rather than NIRC---High Court, while focusing on workman status and industrial dispute, found that NIRC had jurisdiction since employees were workmen and termination arose from trade union activities. (h) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 199---Writ of certiorari---Scope against orders of NIRC---High Court, in certiorari jurisdiction, does not act as appellate Court and cannot substitute its own decision for that of NIRC---Interference is confined to cases of illegality, jurisdictional defect, violation of natural justice, error of law apparent on face of record, or unreasonable decision in Wednesbury sense. (i) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 199(1)(a)(ii)---Judicial review---Findings of fact by tribunal---Scope---High Court cannot reconsider factual findings of inferior Court/Tribunal based on documentary evidence and statements recorded during proceedings---Where NIRC considered relevant record and law and gave reasoned findings, writ Court would not interfere merely because petitioner-bank sought reappraisal of evidence. (j) Writ of certiorari---- ----Supervisory jurisdiction---Not appellate jurisdiction---Object of certiorari is to curb excess of jurisdiction and keep inferior Courts/Tribunals within legal bounds---High Court exercises supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction and does not re-decide factual controversy unless manifest error of law or jurisdictional defect appears on face of record. Cited Cases: • Khwaja Rauf Segal v. Full Bench, NIRC, W.P. No.86/2019 • Teradata Ireland Limited v. Federation of Pakistan 2020 PTD 1316 • Chief Constable of North Wales Police v. Evans [1982] 3 All ER 141 (k) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)---- ----Concurrent findings of Single Member and Full Bench NIRC---Interference by High Court---Single Member NIRC had set aside dismissal orders as illegal and unlawful; Full Bench NIRC upheld such decision---High Court found concurrent findings well-reasoned, based on relevant record and law, and free from jurisdictional defect or legal infirmity---Constitutional petitions were dismissed. (l) Labour law---- ----Unfair labour practice / victimization---Union officials---Dismissal---Effect---Where dismissal orders were founded upon alleged participation in CBA activities and absence for union meetings, plea of victimization by management required consideration by labour forum---NIRC rightly examined matter in context of industrial dispute rather than treating it as ordinary individual misconduct case. Disposition: W.P. Nos.1859, 1913 and 1914 of 2020 filed by ZTBL were dismissed; orders dated 15.11.2019 passed by Single Member NIRC and 24.06.2020 passed by Full Bench NIRC were maintained; termination orders of respondent employees remained set aside as illegal and unlawful.

Summary: The private respondents were employed by the petitioner-club as a Baker and a Cook in different years.The private respondents were terminated from their services on specific dates in 2007.The private respondents filed Grievance Applications under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, claiming that their termination was illegal.The learned Sindh Labour Court No.1 (SLC) Karachi, after hearing the case, allowed the grievance applications and ordered the reinstatement of the private respondents with back benefits.The petitioner-club, dissatisfied with the SLC's decision, filed appeals before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (SLAT), which were subsequently dismissed.The petitioner-club then approached the High Court of Sindh to challenge the judgments of the SLC and SLAT.The primary issues before the court were whether the private respondents were permanent employees of the club and whether their termination was legal.Key Findings:The court found that the duties assigned to the private respondents fell within the definition of "worker" or "workman" as per relevant labor laws.The court held that the SLC had jurisdiction to entertain the grievance applications of the private respondents.The court rejected the claim that the petitioner-club had been condemned unheard, stating that both the SLC and SLAT had carefully considered the evidence and issues before them.The court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts and found no grounds for interference in their judgments.The High Court ultimately dismissed both the petitions.This judgment suggests that the High Court upheld the decisions of the lower labor courts, which ordered the reinstatement of the private respondents with back benefits, finding no legal basis for overturning those decisions.

Summary: the court observed that both lower courts consistently held that the petitioner was wrongly dismissed by the respondent No. 1. The court also noted that there were no allegations of misconduct that could have prejudiced the peace and harmony within the industry.The court cited section 46(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, which allows the Labour Court to award compensation in cases of wrongful termination.Referring to legal precedents, the court emphasized that compensation can be awarded when reinstatement is not considered proper, and it should be done with the consent of the parties.In this case, considering the circumstances, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment to the extent of compensation, and converted it into reinstatement with back benefits. No cost order was issued.

Summary: Background: The petitioners, M/s Zhongxing Telecom Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., challenged the dismissal of their application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) by the trial court. The respondent, Awais Ahmed, filed a suit for declaration and damages of Rs. 6,766,200, alleging wrongful termination after eight years of employment. The petitioners argued that the respondent’s termination was in accordance with the terms of his employment contract, which allowed termination without cause upon one month's notice or salary in lieu. -----Issues: 1- Was the respondent’s termination lawful under the terms of his employment contract? -----2- Could the respondent’s suit for damages proceed when the employment was governed by a contract without statutory protections? -----3- Did the trial court err in dismissing the application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Termination Lawfulness: The respondent’s employment contract explicitly allowed termination without cause by giving one month’s notice or salary in lieu. The termination letter dated June 12, 2015, complied with this condition and was a termination simpliciter, not stigmatizing the respondent. --Jurisdiction and Damages Claim: The relationship between the parties was governed by the principles of "master and servant." The petitioners were not a statutory body, and the respondent’s employment was not protected by statutory rules. Under established legal principles, the respondent’s only remedy was to seek damages for wrongful termination, provided the termination violated the terms of the contract. --Trial Court’s Error: The trial court erred in observing that the suit was competent for recovery of damages without first determining whether the termination violated the employment contract. Considering the terms of the employment contract and the termination letter, the court concluded that the termination was lawful, and no cause of action existed for the respondent to claim damages. The civil revision petition was allowed, and the trial court’s order dismissing the application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. was set aside. The plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. as no cause of action existed for the respondent’s claims. -----Citations/Precedents: ABN-AMRO Bank Vs. Wasim Dar (2004 PLC 69): Employment governed by the master-servant relationship cannot result in reinstatement; wrongful termination entitles the employee to sue for damages only. S.M. Sham Ahmad Zaidi Vs. Malik Hassan Ali Khan (2002 SCMR 338): Courts may consider supporting documents in deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Muhammad Saleem Ullah Vs. Addl. District Judge, Gujranwala (PLD 2005 SC 511): Courts can rely on undisputed documents in determining the maintainability of a suit.

Summary: Service matters (statutory or non statutory rules of service) --- The petitioner claimed that his removal from service was illegal and requested the court to set aside the termination letter, restore him to his post with benefits, and issue a writ of mandamus for an interview call letter. Additionally, the petitioner sought a direction to prevent the university from conducting interviews for the Assistant Registrar position and to stop any further actions related to filling the vacancy. Lastly, the petitioner requested a writ of prohibition to prevent the university from defaming him in print or electronic media and asked for compensation and a press release to clarify the falsity of previous news items.The background of the case reveals that the petitioner was initially appointed on a contract basis as Assistant Registrar but sought regularization of his service, which was not granted. Allegations were made that he had submitted a forged B.Sc degree during his appointment, leading to a show cause notice and subsequent suspension. The petitioner denied the allegations and objected to the appointment of an inquiry officer, but his termination was ultimately ordered.The judgment addressed the maintainability of the petition, highlighting that the university's rules were non-statutory in nature and that the petitioner's appointment was contractual. The court ruled that the petitioner did not have a vested right to reinstatement in service. It also noted that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.Ultimately, the court found the petition to be not maintainable and dismissed it, citing the lack of statutory rules at the University of Karachi and the absence of a fundamental or vested right for the petitioner to remain in his contractual position.

Summary: Termination---The petitioner filed a petition seeking various reliefs including the declaration of an order by the respondents as illegal and void, the production of certain notifications, and restoration to the petitioner's original position with consequential benefits. The petitioner, appointed as Principal of Cadet College Sanghi on a contract basis, challenges his termination without proper notice or inquiry, alleging violation of rules and regulations. The petitioner's counsel argued that the termination lacked due process and violated constitutional rights. Conversely, the respondents argued that the termination was justified, the petitioner's contract expired, and there was no obligation to extend it. They contend that the petitioner's appointment was contractual and not subject to regularization. The court determined that the petitioner's appointment and termination fall under the jurisdiction of the Cadet College's Board of Governors and its internal regulations, not statutory law. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition, citing lack of jurisdiction and reliance on non-statutory rules. The court's decision rests on established legal principles, as outlined in various cases, including Muhammad Zaman etc. Vs. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance Division (Regulation Wing), Islamabad, (2017 SCMR 571).

Summary: Background:Muhammad Asif Khan, a retired Sub-Inspector Police, challenged his retirement order before the Service Tribunal, alleging wrongful termination. The Tribunal accepted his appeal, reinstating him with back benefits. The appellants, including police authorities, appealed this decision, citing the time-barred nature of Khan's appeal as a primary issue.----Issues:Whether the Service Tribunal erred in accepting Khan's appeal, considering it was time-barred.Whether Khan adequately explained the delay in filing his appeal.Whether the Tribunal properly applied the law regarding jurisdiction and time limitations.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court upheld the appellants' appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's decision. The Court reasoned:Khan's appeal was filed after the prescribed limitation period, which was admitted even by Khan himself in his appeal documents.The Tribunal failed to address the time-barred nature of the appeal, a crucial aspect that needed resolution before considering the merits.In service-related matters, the jurisdiction of civil courts is conclusively excluded, and the Service Tribunal holds exclusive authority. Pursuing litigation in civil courts in such matters cannot be deemed in good faith or with due diligence.Khan's failure to promptly appeal the trial court's dismissal and the subsequent delay in appealing the first appellate court's decision further weakened his case for condonation of delay.The Tribunal's oversight in addressing the issue of limitation rendered its decision flawed. Without addressing this fundamental issue, the Tribunal couldn't proceed to consider the merits of the case.----Citations/Precedents:Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, Section 47Limitation Act, 1908, Section 14Legal principle regarding jurisdiction exclusivity of the Service Tribunal in service-related matters.

Summary: Background: The petitioners were appointed as Police Constables in District Benazirabad after successfully completing the recruitment process in 2012 and 2014, respectively. In 2019, they were dismissed from service on the grounds of being overage at the time of their appointment, with one being 25 days over the limit and the other 62 days. Despite being served show cause notices, no personal hearing or formal inquiry was conducted before their dismissal. The petitioners filed appeals with the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, which dismissed their appeals in 2023, upholding the dismissal. The petitioners then sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. ------ Issues: ------ 1) Whether the petitioners were dismissed without a personal hearing or a proper inquiry. ------ 2) Whether the petitioners were subjected to discrimination, as other similarly situated employees had been reinstated. ------ 3) Whether the petitioners were unfairly dismissed based on the age issue at the time of their appointment. ------ Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the petitions, converting them into appeals and remanding the case to the Sindh Service Tribunal for reconsideration. The Court set aside the Tribunal's previous order, directing it to decide the appeals on their merits after providing the petitioners and respondents with a fair opportunity to be heard. The Court observed that the petitioners were denied their right to a personal hearing and that no proper inquiry was conducted before their dismissal. It also noted that the police department had failed to identify the petitioners’ overage status at the time of appointment, only raising the issue several years later. The Court raised concerns about the potential for discrimination, as other similarly placed employees had been reinstated, and stressed that procedural fairness must be observed in employment dismissals. ------ Citations/Precedents: No specific legal precedents were cited in this judgment, but the principles of fair procedure, equal treatment, and due process were emphasized.