Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS Respondent: SHAUKAT FARHAN and 9 othersHonorable Justice IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRYAurangzeb Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmoodul Islam,Syed Aaqa Asif Jafri, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi
2007 P L C (C
2007 P L C (C.S.) 83
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman, Lahore and 3 others
Versus
SHAUKAT FARHAN and 9 others
Civil Petitions Nos.204-L to 213-L of 2004, decided on 18th February, 2004.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 8-11-2003 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in Appeals Nos.466-L/CS to 474-L/CS of 2002).
Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978---
----Rr. 3, 4 & 5---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Ss.2-A & 4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Remand of case by Service Tribunal---Factual controversy---Failure to give opportunity of hearing---Respondents were Meter Readers in Water and Power Development Authority and were working on contract basis---On the allegations of fake meter readings, contracts of respondents were not extended---Service Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the respondents and remanded the case to Authorities for deciding the same after providing opportunity of hearing to the respondents---Validity---Respondents' contracts were not extended because there were fake meter reading in their record---Service Tribunal had rightly remanded the case to the Authority at least to establish on record by evidence all allegations of fake meter reading on which ground their contracts were not extended---Such aspect of the case could only be set at naught in a regular inquiry after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondents and examining the record in accordance with law---Merely on the basis of allegation of fake meter reading, it was not possible to hold that the allegation was proved against them---Since the Authority itself had imposed a condition for extending or otherwise of the contracts of the respondents, it had an obligation to prove the same accordingly---Service Tribunal was justified in remanding the case to the Authority for proceeding afresh---Leave to appeal was refused.
Aurangzeb Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmoodul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all C.Ps.).
Syed Aaqa Asif Jafri, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos.204, 206, 207, and 210-L to 213-L of 2003).
Nemo for Respondents (in Civil Petitions. Nos. 205, 208 and 209-L of 2003).
Date of hearing: 18th February, 2004.
JUDGMENT
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.204-L of 2004 to 213-L of 2004 as these have arisen out of common judgment and involve identical questions of law and facts.
2. Precisely stating facts of the cases are that the respondents were recruited/appointed as Meter Readers in the Multan Electric Power Company/WAPDA initially for a period of one year w.e.f. 1-11-1999 whereafter their contractual period was extended from time to time and lastly vide Office Order No.257-T-42354/CE/MEPCO/IC, dated 14-12-2001 the Chief Executive granted extension in the contractual period of some of the Meter Readers of Bahawalpur Circle for a period mentioned against the name of each of them. In the end of the Office Order following note was appended:--
"The contract period of Meter Readers having more than one fake reading complaint have been extended upto 15-12-2001 and no further extension will be allowed to them as such they may be relieved on that date."
It seems that the contracts of the respondents were not extended for the reason that allegedly they made fake meter readings. The orders of not extending the contractual period of the respondents were challenged before the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore who vide impugned judgment remanded the cases to the Authority with the following observations:--
"It is mentioned in appointment orders of the appellants that they would be governed by the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978. Since they have been condemned unheard, therefore, they would be proceeded against under the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978. They shall be given notices for giving fake readings. The respondents shall pass fresh orders considering the defence reply and also merits of each case. The entire proceedings shall be completed within a period of six months from the date a copy of this order is received in the office of the respondents.
There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners had no obligation to extend the contract of the respondents after expiry of the period for which extension was given to them, therefore, on the last date of the extended period contracts of service were terminated.
4. We are not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners in view of the fact that admittedly the respondents' contract was not extended because there were fake meter "readings in their record. Keeping in view this angle the Federal Service Tribunal had remanded the cases to the Authority at least to establish on record by evidence the allegations of fake meter reading on which ground their contracts were not extended. This aspect of the case can only be set at naught in regular inquiry after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondents and examining the record in accordance with law, because merely on the basis of attributing fake meter readings to them it was not possible to hold that allegation stood proved against them. Since the Authority itself had imposed a condition for extending or otherwise of the contracts of the respondents, therefore, it has an obligation to prove the same accordingly.
5. Thus, in the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Federal Service Tribunal was quite justified in remanding the cases to the petitioner-Authority for proceeding afresh in view of the observations made in the concluding para. of the impugned judgment.
6. For the foregoing reasons we see no merit in these petitions as such the same are dismissed and leave refused.
M.H./W-2/SC Petitions dismissed.