PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION vs AZIZ-UR-REHMAN
This civil petition arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh which allowed a constitutional petition for the implementation of a Federal Service Tribunal decision in favor of the respondent employee. The core legal question was whether an unchallenged judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal can be refused implementation by an organization in light of subsequent apex court rulings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal which were never challenged before the apex court have attained finality and must be implemented by the concerned organizations without further litigation, in accordance with the principle laid down in Muhammad Idrees v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan.
- Whether an unchallenged judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal attains finality and must be implemented by the concerned organization?
- Can an employer refuse to implement a service tribunal's judgment on the basis of a subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court when the original judgment was never challenged?
- Section 2-A, Service Tribunals Act 1973
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.--- This Petition has been filed against the judgment dated 16-4-2009 passed by the High Court of Sindh at Karachi.
2. Briefly stating facts of the case are that the respondent's service Appeal No,340(K)(CE) of 2004 was accepted vide judgment dated 26-6-2006 by the Federal Service Tribunal and the judgment has not been challenged. Concluding para of the impugned judgment is reproduced herein below:-- "For the aforesaid reason and discussion, we are of the considered view that Appellant is entitled to the benefits of Administrative Order No,32/78 and his total pensionable service comes to 26 years 9 months and 21 days. He is also entitled to increase in Airworthiness approval allowance and Endorsement Allowance with effect from 1-1-2003, so also he will be entitled to the profit on his Provident Fund Contribution to be calculated by the Respondent Corporation expeditiously. The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to cost."
3. The respondent for implementation of the judgment preferred C.P. No,981 of 2008 which was allowed on 16th April, 2009 with direction to the appellant to implement the judgment in letter and spirit. Against the said order leave has been obtained on 25th September, 2009. Leave granting order is reproduced herein below:--- "Making reference to the facts of this case learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice leave grant order of a bench of this Court dated 30-6-2009 in C.P.L.A No, 537-K of 2009 and submitted that similar controversy is involved in the said petition where leave has been granted.
(2) On perusal of such order, we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel.
Accordingly, following the rule of consistency, Leave to appeal is granted in this petition to examine the legal controversy involved in the matter. Office is directed to fix appeal arising out this petition along with Appeal No,169-K of 2009 arose out of C.P. No,537-K of 2009."
4. Learned counsel contended that the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 26th June, 2006 is not implementable In view of the judgment in the case of Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salain v.
Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602 para-109 clause (c), therefore, the High Court may have not directed for its implementation.
5. We have noted that after passing of the order by the Tribunal, it was incumbent upon the appellant to have approached the Court by filling petition with a prayer that in view of that as now Mubeen-us-Salam case (ibid) judgments, the judgment passed by the Federal Service Tribunal is not sustainable but the judgment of FST was not challenged by filling petition in this Court and in the meanwhile this Court clarified some of the areas of Mubeen-us-Salam case by the judgment in the case of Muhammad Idrees v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan PLD 2007 SC 681.
Relevant para from the said judgment is reproduced herein below:--- "14(b) The judgments of the learned Federal Service Tribunal rendered on the basis of section 2-A of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 which were never challenged before this Court have attained finality and shall be implemented by the concerned organizations without dragging the employees into further litigation. "
6. We inquired from the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the above para whether the appellant is not bound to implement the judgment in letter and spirit instead of dragging the respondent in further litigation, he could not answer satisfactorily except repeating the arguments noted above.
7. In view of the ratio in the case of Muhammad Idress (ibid) we are of the opinion that instant appeal has no merit and under the circumstances the High Court had rightly granted relief to the respondent for implementation of the judgment. Thus, the appeal is dismissed and the appellant is directed to implement the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 26th June, 2006 in letter and spirit within a period of 15 days after receipt hereof and send compliance report to the Registrar for our perusal in Chambers. Copy of the same shall also be handed over to the respondent for information,