Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2024 IHC 177288
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Muhammad Shafeeq etc vs FOP etc
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2024 IHC 177288. In this matter between Muhammad Shafeeq etc and FOP etc, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb DECISION DATE: 24-JUN-2024 CASE NO: Intra Court Appeal-627-2021 CITATION: 2024 IHC 177288 PARTIES: Muhammad Shafeeq etc VS FOP etc LAW / SECTION: - SUBJECT: Writ, REMARKS: Intra Court Appeal in WP 406-20 (Seeks direction against respondent to allow restoration of 50% commuted portion of their pension) ============================================================ ORDER SHEET IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
I.C.A.No.627 of 2021 Mohammad Shafeeq and others Versus Federation of Pakistan and others
S. No. of order/ proceedings Date of order/ Proceedings Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel where necessary.
Through the instant intra Court appeal, the appellants impugns the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by t he learned Judge -in-Chambers whereby writ petition No.40 6/2020 filed by them, was dismissed as not maintainable . Through the said writ petition, the petitioners / appellants sought the restoration of 50% commutation and enhancement in pension being paid to them in accordance with the Federal Government employees. 2. The matter agitated by the appellants in the said writ petition clearly pertains to the terms and conditions of their service with Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (“PIAC”). 3. In t he case of Pakistan International Airline Corporation Vs. Tanveer-ur-Rehman (PLD 2010 SC 676), it has been held as follows:- “19. However, this question needs no further discussion in view of the fact that we are not of the opinion that if a corporatio n is discharging its functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, the aggrieved persons can approach the High Court by invoking its constitutional jurisdiction, as observed hereinabove. But as far as the cases of the employees, regarding the ir individual grievances, are concerned, they are to be decided on their own merits namely that if any adverse action has been taken by the employer in violation of the statutory rules, only then such action should be amenable to the writ 13. 24.06.2024 Mr. Nadeem Mukhtar Ch., Advocate for the appellants.
2 I.C.A.No.627/2021
jurisdiction. How ever, if such action has no backing of the statutory rules, then the principle of Master and Servant would be applicable and such employees have to seek remedy permissible before the Court of competent jurisdiction.”
The law laid down in the case of Pakistan International Airline Corporation Vs. Tanveer -ur- Rehman (supra) was reiterated in the case of Shoua Junejo Vs. PIA (2012 SCMR 1681 ) wherein it was held as follows:- “7. In our opinion in the case of Tanweer -ur- Rehman and others (Supra) it was hold tha t as PIA was performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, it was amenable to the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. However it was also held in. no uncertain terms that since PIA did not have any statutory rules therefore whenever an issue arose as to the violation of the terms and conditions of its employees then the same would not be open to interference by the learned High Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction as the relationship of its employees with PIA is that of master and servant. No distinction was made by this Court in such relationship vis -a-vis disputes of serving employees and those who had been compulsorily retired etc. The pronouncement in Tanweer -ur- Rehman and others (Supra) was affirmed by this Court in the case of Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd. through Chairman v. Iqbal Nasir and others (PLD 2011 SC 132) wherein again it was held that though the Corporation was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court as the majority of its shares were held by the Government however, in absence of statutory rules the principle of master and servant was applicable and the employees of the Corporation have to seek their remedy elsewhere on the allegation of violation of terms and conditions of service.”
4. In the cases reported as PIA Corporation Vs. Suleman Alam Rizvi (2015 SCMR 1545), Mrs. Aneesa Rehman Vs. PIA (1994 SCMR 2232), Fouzia Khan Vs. Chairman / CEO, PIA (2020 PLC (C.S.) 1078) , Sher Muhammad Zafar Vs. Pakistan Inter national Airlines Corporation (2019 PLC (C.S.) 709), Khalid Hassan Khan Vs. 3 I.C.A.No.627/2021
Pakistan International Airlines (2013 YLR 847), Aziz-ur-Rehman Chaudhry Vs. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (2017 PLC ( C.S.) 745), and Zafar Iqbal Vs. PIA (2011 PLC (C.S.) 259), it has been held inter alia that since PIAC does not have statutory service rules or regulations, the relationship between PIAC and its employees is that of master and servant, and therefore such e mployees could not invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to agitate a dispute pertaining to the terms and conditions of their service. 5. In view of the above, the instant appeal is dismissed as not maintainable . The appellants are at liberty to agitate their grievance against PIAC before the appropriate forum.
(ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR) (MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB) JUDGE JUDGE
Sultan