Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM ABBAS VS Respondent: SECRETARY/CHAIRMAN, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 310
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Rana Bhagwandas, Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ
GHULAM ABBAS and 11 others
versus
SECRETARY/CHAIRMAN, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and others
Civil Appeals Nos. 127‑K to 138‑K of 1999, decided on 31st July, 2000.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 27‑4‑1998 of the Federal Service Tribunal, passed in Appeals Nos. 2661 to 2672(K) of 1997).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Ss.2‑A & 4‑‑ Permanent workman‑‑‑Status‑‑‑Failure to treat workers as permanent employees‑‑Employees of Pakistan Railways, were terminated orally on the ground that they were not workers/workmen‑‑‑Contention of the employees was that they had worked for Pakistan Railways for various periods ranging up to ten years or more on record but they were treated as temporary workers and to avoid the employees acquiring status of permanent workman, break was created in their employment‑‑‑Documents relied upon by the employees were denied by the Authorities and alleged the same as unauthentic and forged‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑To resolve the factual controversy, judgment passed by Service Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits after taking into consideration relevant evidence 4dduced by pies.
Miss Wajahat Niaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
Shaikh Anwar‑ul‑Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Respondents Nos. l and 3 to 6: Ex parte.
Date of hearing: 31st July, 2000.
JUDGMENT
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.‑‑‑These appeals by leave of the Court arise out of a common judgment dated 27‑4‑1998
rendered by the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing service appeals of the appellants for the reason that as they were not permanent workmen they could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal was also swayed away that they did not file their orders of appointments and written orders terminating their employment after having served in Pakistan Railways for over a decade.
2. The appellants though worked for Pakistan Railways for various periods ranging up to ten years or more on paper but they were treated as temporary workers and their services were terminated after a lapse of two months or so every time in order to create a break in their employment so that they should not acquire the status of a permanent workman. It is not disputed that they were appointed some times in 1986, 1987 whereas their services were orally terminated in September, 1997 obliging them to prefer separate grievance petitions under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance before the Sindh Labour Court, Sukkur. Respondents's case before the Labour Court was that the appellants were not workers/workmen within the meaning of the term. Their grievance petitions were, however, dismissed. Later, the appellants invoked the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal by filing service appeals which were resisted and ultimately dismissed as incompetent by the impugned judgment.
3. In support of their cases appellants have placed on record a number of documents tending to show that they had been treated as regular employees of the Pakistan Railways inasmuch as they were provided with medical treatment, free travelling passes, increments in salaries, medical reimbursement including hospitalization, deduction of G.P. Fund and also maintenance of their Service Books.
4. On the last date of hearing when these appeals came up for hearing before this Court, learned counsel for the respondents expressed the view that the respondents were authorized to appoint and terminate the workers in Pakistan Railways verbally. He was, therefore, called upon to make such submission in writing. Accordingly, learned counsel has placed a note spread over five pages attempting to justify his stand with reference to Pakistan Government Railways Code for. Engineering Department. On factual plane learned counsel says that the documents relied upon by the appellants are not authentic and have been rather forged.
5. In order to resolve the controversy, these appeals are accepted, impugned judgment rendered by the Federal Service Tribunal is set aside and the appeals are remanded to the Federal Service Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits after taking into consideration relevant evidence that may be adduced by the parties. Since the question of reinstatement of the appellants has been pending since long, hopefully the Tribunal shall take steps for deciding this matter on priority basis and dispose of the same within four months. In case it be not possible, the Tribunal shall submit a periodical report to the Assistant Registrar of this Court at Karachi Branch Registry, at the end of every month.
Q.M.H./M.A.K./G‑87/S
Order accordingly.