PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION vs ABDUL GHAFOOR and others
This appeal by leave was directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had reinstated the respondent, an employee of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, following his termination. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, applied to contractual employees of the Corporation and which legal provisions governed their termination. Upon review, the Court noted that the Tribunal's decision to reinstate the respondent was primarily based on the finding that the termination order was not issued by a competent authority. The departmental record confirmed that no written approval from the competent authority existed for the termination of the respondent and other affected employees, with only vague references to potential verbal instructions. The Supreme Court held that regardless of whether the respondent was considered a civil servant under Section 2-A, any termination must be executed by a competent authority. Finding that the termination order lacked this essential legal requirement, the Court dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the Tribunal's decision to reinstate the employee.
- Is a termination order valid if it is not issued by the competent authority?
- Does Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 apply to contractual employees of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation?
- Must the termination of a contractual employee be governed by the terms and conditions of their service contract?
- Section 2-A, Service Tribunals Act 1973
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment dated 18-7-2002 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, (hereinafter called as 'the Tribunal') whereby on acceptance of appeal filed by the respondent Nb.1 against the order of his termination of service, he has been reinstated in service.
2. Leave to appeal was granted to consider the following points:- ' "As to whether section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 would be applicable in case of contractual employees of the Corporation and which provisions of law would govern the removal/termination of such employees?"
3. We have gone through the judgment of the Tribunal and find that the main ground on which the appeal of respondent No,1 was accepted was that the termination order was not passed by the competent authority. Nothing has been said about this aspect of the case in the appeal. We have gone through the record and find that the case was taken up at the departmental level of the PIA to find out as to what was the effect of non-availability of order in writing of the competent authority and find that it was admitted by the departmental authority that no approval of the Competent Authofity for termination of theservice of respondent No,1, Waheed Murad and Amanullah was available on the record and it was pointed out that there might been verbal instructions.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that even if respondent No,1 was covered by the definition of civil servant by virtue of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, but the Tribunal was required to decide the, same according to terms and conditions of the service as contained in his contract of service and determine whether the same was in accordance therewith and on other ground respondent No,1 could be re-instated in service.
5. Even if this criteria is applied, it was required that termination order should be passed by a competent authority, therefore, on this short ground this appeal is liable to be dismissed as the order of termination of the service of respondent No,1 was not made by a competent authority.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal has not merit, and the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Cited by 2 cases
- Lt. Cdr. (R) ABDUL AZIZ NAREJO vs KARACHI PORT TRUST through Chairman 2015 PLC (C.S.) 699
- TANVEER KAUSAR vs MANAGING DIRECTOR P.I.A.C. and another 2006 PLC (C.S.) 1200