Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 LHC 3379
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Year of Decision: 2025
Decision Date: 2025-05-29
Parties: Gujranwala Electric Power Company etc vs Ahsan etc
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court on 2025-05-29, officially reported as 2025 LHC 3379. In this matter between Gujranwala Electric Power Company etc and Ahsan 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.
Case cited as 2025LHC3379
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Shujaat Ali Khan Title: Gujranwala Electric Power Company etc vs Ahsan etc Case No.: Writ Petition No. 2296 of 2020 Date of Judgment:2025-05-29 Reported As: 2025 LHC 3379 Result: Petition Accepted
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT Shujaat Ali Khan, J:- Through this single judgment I intend to decide the petitions mentioned in the following Schedules having commonality of law and facts: -
Schedule-A Sr. #WP No.Date of consolidated decision of Labour CourtDate of decision of PLAT 1. 2282/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 2. 2283/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 3. 2284/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 4 2291/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 5 2292/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 6 2293/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 7 2294/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 82296/2020 (this petition)20.02.2019 25.04.2019 9 2308/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 10 2309/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019
---
## Page 2
11 2311/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 12 2312/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 13 2314/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 14 2315/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 15 2317/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 16 2318/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 17 2323/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 18 2324/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 19 2325/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 20 2326/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 21 2327/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 22 2328/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 23 2329/2020 20.02.2019 25.11.2019 24 2331/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 25 2332/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 26 2333/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 27 2334/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 28 2335/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 29 2336/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 30 2338/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 31 2339/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019 32 2340/2020 20.02.2019 25.04.2019
Schedule-B Sr. # WP No.Date of decision of Labour CourtDate of decision of PLAT 1. 22374/2020 29.01.2019 25.04.2019 2. 22376/2020 04.09.2019 25.11.2019 3. 22379/2020 29.01.2019 25.04.2019 4. 22383/2020 29.01.2019 25.04.2019 5. 22386/2020 29.01.2019 25.04.2019 6. 22387/2020 16.01.2019 25.04.2019
2. Succinctly, pursuant to a publication, got published by the Director General (HR & Admn.), Gujranwala Power Electric Company Limited (petitioner-GEPCO), the private respondents applied against the post of Assistant Lineman. Upon completion of recruitment process, they were appointed on contract basis, for a period of one year. Since the services of private respondents, subject matter of Writ Petitions falling in Schedule-A, were not being regularized rather they were relieved of their duties upon completion of their contract period, they, after serving requisite Grievance Notices, approached Labour Court No.VII, Gujranwala (Labour Court) by filing Grievance Petitions with the prayers for their reinstatement and regularization in service on the ground that after satisfactory completion of nine months' service, they attained the status of permanent workmen.
---
## Page 3
3. Insofar as the factual narration of the petitions, mentioned in Schedule-B, is concerned, it has been observed that the private respondents were found involved in concealment of their over qualification, thus, their services were dispensed with by the competent authority. Being aggrieved of termination of their services, they approached the Labour Court seeking reinstatement and regularization. 4. The petitioner-GEPCO contested the said Grievance Petitions inter-alia on the point that since terms and conditions of the private respondents were governed under statutory rules, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and that since private respondents, in the Writ Petitions subject matter of Schedule-B, concealed their higher qualification, their termination was duly justified. The Labour Court accepted the Grievance Petitions filed by the private respondents and while ordering for their reinstatement, also directed the petitioner-GEPCO to treat them as permanent workmen. Being aggrieved of the decision of the Labour Court, the petitioner- GEPCO filed independent appeals, against the acceptance of the Grievance Petitions filed by the private respondents, but without any success as the same were dismissed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (PLAT), Lahore. Being dissatisfied with decisions of the fora below, the petitioner- GEPCO has filed these petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-GEPCO submits that after promulgation of the State-owned Enterprises (Governance and Operations) Act, 2023 (the Act, 2023) the governance of state-owned companies as well as its employees is to be regulated under the said enactment which fact escaped notice of the courts below; that as per section 4 of the Companies Act, 2017, the said enactment has over-riding effect over any other law for the time being in force, thus, the terms and conditions of service of the private respondents could not be governed under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (the Ordinance, 1968); that since indemnity has been catered for the employees of state-owned companies against any kind of proceedings, the Grievance Petitions filed by the private respondents before the Labour Court were not maintainable; that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction in the matters where terms and conditions of service of the employees are governed under statutory rules and since the private respondents were governed under The Pakistan Wapda Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 (the Rules, 1978) their Grievance Petitions before the Labour Court were not maintainable; that according to section 17(1)(b) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 (the Act, 1958), the employees of WAPDA have been declared as civil servants, thus, they can approach the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) in the event of any grievance in relation to terms and conditions of their service; that according to section 27 of the Act, 2023, the Board of Directors (BoDs) has been given independence to decide the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the state-owned companies and private respondents cannot claim anything in violation of policy framed by the BoDs of the petitioner-GEPCO; that since no commercial activity is being undertaken by the petitioner-GEPCO, it did not fall within the definition of commercial establishment as defined under section 2(b) of the Ordinance, 1968 to attract jurisdiction of the Labour Court; that the employees of the petitioner-GEPCO cannot be equated with those of private concerns inasmuch as on the one hand they have to endanger their life while performing their duties and on the other they have to ensure supply of uninterrupted electricity to the citizens; that according to the Schedule annexed with the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the Constitution), electricity being federal subject, jurisdiction of the Labour Court was ousted; that supply of electricity to the citizens falls within basic right of the masses and if affairs of the petitioner-GEPCO are allowed to be governed in a hopscotch manner, by curtailing its powers to take action against the delinquent officers/officials, the administrative threadbare of the petitioner-GEPCO would destroy; that in the advertisement, pursuant whereto the private respondents were recruited, it was clarified that they were appointed for one year; that since the government does not permits the petitioner-GEPCO to
---
## Page 4
recruit persons on permanent basis due to ban imposed by the government, the petitioner-GEPCO resorted to contract employment which did not create any vested right in favour of the appointees for regularization; that contract of those employees, whose performance was below the mark, was not extended and no law desists the petitioner-GEPCO from taking action against the shirkers; that since it was clarified in the appointment letters of the private respondents that they could not claim regularization, the impugned decisions, being violative of the terms and conditions of their appointment, are not justified; that though the petitioner-GEPCO is not under direct control of WAPDA yet it has to implement the policy decisions of the Federal Government in view of provisions of the Act, 2023; that Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 (PIRA, 2010) being provincial law, was inapplicable to employees of the petitioner-GEPCO which is a federal entity and that even if the performance of the private respondents was satisfactory, they were not entitled to regularization rather at the most they could ask for extension in their period of contracts. Relies on Messrs Rajby Industries Karachi and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2023 SCMR 1407), PESCO, WAPDA House through Chief Executive v. Ishaq Khan and others (2021 PLC 148) and LESCO v. Muhammad Shoaib and others (2020 PLC (C.S.) 654). 6. Mr. Khalid Ismail, Advocate, representing the private respondents in W.P. Nos.2309/2020, 2324/2020, 2332/2020 and 2284/2020, states that mere adoption of the Rules, 1978 does not render the status of the rules governing terms and conditions of the service of the private respondents as statutory; that the employees who were transferred from WAPDA to different distribution companies (DISCOs) were to be governed under the Rules, 1978, till framing of their independent rules by the company concerned, but since his clients were recruited in the year 2015 they were to be governed under the principle of master-and-servant; that since there are no service rules governing terms and conditions of service of the private respondents proviso to section 1(c) of the Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable to them; that the points raised before this Court, having not been agitated before the courts below, cannot be entertained at this stage; that when the petitioner- GEPCO admitted in its reply that the private respondents were recruited against posts of permanent nature, they cannot be termed as contract employees at the whims of the petitioner- GEPCO; that discriminatory attitude on the part of the petitioner-GEPCO is evident from the fact that though services of Sulman Rafique son of Muhammad Rafique, one of the co-employees of the private respondents have been regularized, vide Office Order bearing No.397/17551-551, dated 12.09.2023, but private respondents have been denied such relief despite the fact that there is no distinguishing feature in their cases and that it is matter of general knowledge that the petitioner- GEPCO undertakes commercial activities and receive bills in receipt of the electricity being supplied by it, thus, it falls within the definition of commercial establishment. To fortify his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the cases reported as Pakistan Electric Power Company v. Syed Salahuddin and others (2022 SCMR 991), order, dated 25.11.2024, passed by the Apex Court of the country in CPLA No.1460-L/2024 and other allied matters, Kamran Ahmad v. Chief Executive GEPCO and others (2017 PLC (C.S.) 900), Manzoor Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Water and Power, Government of Pakistan and 4 others (2018 PLC (C.S.) 1224) and judgment, dated 04.06.2024, rendered by this Court in W.P. No.61325 of 2022, titled Water and Sanitation Agency (WASA) v. Hussain Shoukat etc. and allied matters. 7. Mr. Salman Riaz Ch., Advocate, representing the private respondents in W.P. Nos.2293/2020, 2314/2020 and 2338/2020, states that since section 17(1)(d) of the Act, 1958 relates to security staff the same cannot be made applicable to the private respondents to dub them as civil servants; that since the petitioner-GEPCO has independent status, the Rules, 1978 are not applicable to private respondents; that when an employee falls within the definition of a workman he can approach the Labour Court for redressal of his grievance; that since the private respondents have been performing duties of manual nature they were rightly treated as workmen by the fora below
---
## Page 5
and their findings are unexceptionable; that according to recitals of appointment letters of the private respondents, they were placed on probation for initial 90-days and if their performance was not satisfactory, the petitioner-GEPCO could dispense with their services but when they are serving the petitioner-GEPCO till date, their status cannot be termed as contractual; that mala-fide on the part of the authorities, at the helm of affairs of the petitioner-GEPCO, is evident from the fact that upon expiry of contracts of the private respondents, they got published an advertisement for fresh recruitment but when they came to know about pendency of proceedings before this Court, they did not proceed further therewith and that concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below cannot be interfered with by this Court in these proceedings. 8. Mirza Aamer Baig, Advocate, representing the private respondents in Writ Petition Nos.22374/2020, 23376/2020, 22379/2020, 22383/2020 and 22387/2020 has adopted the arguments advanced by M/s Khalid Ismail and Salman Riaz Chaudhary, Advocates. 9. Mr. Saqib Mumtaz Advocate, representing the petitioner in W.P. No.22386/2020, in addition to adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. Khalid Ismail and Salman Riaz Chaudhary, Advocate, submits that no extra-ordinary circumstances have been disclosed by the petitioner-GEPCO while terminating services of his clients. Adds that both the courts below have given cogent reasons in support of their decisions, thus, the same are immune from interference by this Court. 10. Mr. Azfar Hakeem Awan, Advocate, representing the petitioners in W.P.Nos.2282/2020, 2283/2020, 2292/2020, 2294/2020, 2308/2020, 2311/2020, 2312/2020, 2315/2020, 2317/2020, 2318/2020, 2323/2020, 2327/2020, 2328/2020, 2333/2020, 2334/2020, 2335/2020 & 2336/2020 adopted the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the private respondents mentioned above. 11. Qazi Waqar Majeed, Advocate for respondent No.1. in Writ Petition Nos. 2291/2020, 2296/2020, 2325/2020, 2326/2020, 2329/2020, 2331/2020, 2339/2020 & 2340/2020 has also adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the private respondents in connected matters. 12. In exercise of his right of rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner-GEPCO argues that since the private respondents (subject matter of Schedule-B) concealed the fact that they were over qualified as compared to the maximum qualification, mentioned in the advertisement, their contracts were terminated and that when the impugned judgments have been passed against the provisions of the Act, 2023, same cannot be allowed to hold the field merely for the reason that they are concurrent in nature. 13. This Court, on 04.12.2024, after hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, formulated following points for further assistance by learned counsel for the parties: - i. As to whether GEPCO falls within the definition of commercial establishment as defined in the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968? ii. As to whether the services of the private respondents can be regularized against their respective posts especially when the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 envisages the term "permanent workman"? iii. As to whether the provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 could be applied to the private respondents despite its repeal through the Removal from Service (Special Powers) (Repeal) Act, 2010? iv. As to whether the orders passed by the fora below can be validated in absence of any policy of the GEPCO or Federal Government regarding regularization of contract employees? v. As to whether mere adoption of rules/regulations applicable to WAPDA employees can be considered that services of the private respondents are governed under statutory rules to oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Court? 14. In reply to question No.i, Mr. Salman Riaz Chaudhry, Advocate, states that the Apex Court of the country, through its decision reported as Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and another v. WAPDA and another (PLD 2014 S.C. 766) has held that WAPDA is independent identity and it has
---
## Page 6
nothing to do with the affairs of the Government and cannot be exempted in respect of tax/levy. Adds that according to Office Memorandum, dated 29.01.2011, issued by the erstwhile Pakistan Electric Power Company (Pvt) Limited (PEPCO), the disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Rule 1978 were to be dealt with under the provisions of the Ordinance 1968. Further adds that according to the Distribution Licence bearing No.4/DL/2002, dated 23.04.2022, the petitioner-GEPCO is engaged in the distribution service and to make sales of electric power to the consumers in the Service Territory and the Concession Territory, thus, it falls within the definition of commercial establishment. Argues that article 240 and 260 of the Constitution of do not declare the petitioner- GEPCO as federal entity, thus it cannot be treated so at the whims of the learned counsel for the petitioner-GEPCO. Further argues that according to section 22 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997, the petitioner-GEPCO is to be treated as commercial establishment. To conclude his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon Town Administration and another v. Mohammad Khalid and others (2024 SCMR 1852). 15. Mr. Khalid Ismail, Advocate, in response to the question, under discussion, while adopting the arguments, advanced by Mr. Salman Riaz Chaudhry, Advocate, submits that according to Section 2(bb) of the Ordinance 1968, electrical undertaking falls within the definition of construction industry, thus, the Labour Court rightly assumed jurisdiction in the matter of the private respondents. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon order, dated 13.05.2025, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P.L.A. No.1525-L/2024, Lahore Development Authority through D.G., Lahore and another v. Abdul Shafique and others (PLD 2000 S.C. 207), Agriculture Works' Union, Balochistan v. The Registrar of Trade Unions, Balochistan, Quetta and others (1997 SCMR 66), WAPDA v. Muhammad Ashraf Naeem (1997 SCMR 1128), National Electric Power Regulatory Authority v. Registrar of Trade Unions, NIRC and others (2015 PLC 148), Shaheen Airport Services v. National Industrial Relations Commission through Deputy Registrar and 2 others (2011 PLC 105), Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and others (AIR 1978 S.C. 548) and judgment, dated 16.05.2024, passed by this Court in W.P.No.41779/2022. 16. Mirza Amer Baig, Advocate, in reply to the question under discussion, while adopting the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the private respondents in the above matters has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Messrs Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2018 SCMR 802). 17. In reply to question No.ii supra, learned counsel, representing the private respondents unanimously submit that since the courts below have declared their clients as permanent workmen, there is no question of regularization of their services. 18. In response to question No.iii, learned counsel for the petitioner-GEPCO states that reference to the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, in the appointment letters of private respondents, is superficial, thus, the said fact cannot be used in favour of the private respondents especially when their terms and conditions of service were to be governed under the Rules 1978. 19. While replying to question No. iv, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents, submit that since the terms and conditions of service of their clients were governed under the Ordinance 1968, they attained the status of permanent workmen upon completion of nine months service notwithstanding the fact as to whether there was any policy of the government or not. Add that policy of the government cannot be used to nullify the fact of an enactment. 20. While responding to question No.v supra, learned counsel for the petitioner-GEPCO contends that as the terms and conditions of service of the private respondents were to be governed under the Rules 1978, their status cannot be considered as that of workmen as argued by their counsel.
---
## Page 7
21. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the documents, annexed with this petition, as well as the case-law, cited at the bar. 22. Firstly, taking upon the objection of learned counsel for the petitioner-GEPCO that since the Act, 2023 has overriding effect over the Ordinance 1968, the Grievance Petitions, filed by the private respondents before the Labour Court were not maintainable, I am of the view that the scope and application of any enactment determines the area of its operation. Section 3 of the Act, 2023, deals with scope and application of said enactment, which for ready reference is reproduced herein below: - "3. Scope and application.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, this Act shall have application to all public sector companies as defined in subsection (54) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2017 (XIX of 2017) and other corporate bodies which are owned and controlled by the Federal Government including those established under special enactments but shall not apply to-- (a) regulatory bodies which are empowered to issue licences, grant tariffs or undertake investigations and inquiries with regard to non-compliance of their statutory functions and powers; (b) subject to sub-section (2), enterprises providing health and educational services and facilities; and (c) subject to the criteria laid down in the state-owned enterprise ownership and management policy, any state-owned enterprise specifically excluded from the complete or partial application of this Act by the Federal Government for reasons to be recorded and by notification in the official Gazette, provided that such exclusion does not undermine the objectives and principles of this Act. (2) The application of this Act may be extended by the Federal Government either completely or partly to any entity specified in Schedule-I, including without limitation to entities which the Federal Government does not have ownership in but exercises control thereon: Provided that the Federal Government shall have the power to amend Schedule-I" From the above, it is more than clear that the Act, 2023 has been enforced for the smooth working of the state-owned companies with specific reference to the appointment of its Chief Executive and the Directors of the Board but nowhere in the entire Act, 2023 not a single reference has been made to the terms & conditions of the employees of state-owned companies, thus, same cannot unnecessarily be stretched to that extent at the whims of the petitioner-GEPCO. 23. Now taking up the plea of learned counsel for the petitioner-GEPCO that since indemnity against any kind of proceedings has been provided to the employees of the state-owned companies, the Grievance Petitions, filed by the private respondents before Labour Court were not maintainable, I am of the view that there is no cavil with the fact as per section 23 ibid indemnity has been given against filing of suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings in respect of their duties but the said indemnity is not applicable to proceedings filed by the private respondents for the reason that they sought declaration from the Labour Court regarding their permanent status after completion of nine months of satisfactory service. Even otherwise, the sought for indemnity does not absolve the management of petitioner-GEPCO to discharge its duties with specific reference to the provisions of the Ordinance, 1968, especially when the same has been made applicable to the employees of Generation Companies(GENCOs) and DISCOs etc. 24. While assisting the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner-GEPCO put much emphasis on the fact that since as per section 17 of the Act 2023, the BoDs has the jurisdiction to determine the terms and conditions of the employment of private respondents, they could not seek regularization in violation of their terms and conditions of service contained in their respective letters of
---
## Page 8
appointments. To appreciate the plea of the petitioner-GEPCO, I have gone through section 17 of the Act, 2023, which for ready reference is reproduced herein below: - "17. Independence of the Board. (1) The Board shall be given autonomy and independence in the discharge of its functions under this Act or any other applicable law in accordance with the adopted business plan and no administrative or standing instructions by any Division of the Federal Government shall be applicable to any state-owned enterprises unless prior approval of the Federal Government has been obtained and any such…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.