RASHID AHMED vs CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GEPCO and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment whereby the Service Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the employer, GEPCO, is not governed by statutory rules, notwithstanding that a penalty was imposed under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Previously, the Labour Court had allowed the petitioner's claim, but the High Court set it aside, holding that the Federal Service Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction because the company was a statutory body owned by the Federal Government. The core legal question concerns the conflicting views on forum jurisdiction between the Labour Court and the Service Tribunal, and whether the resulting confusion entitles the litigant to condonation of delay. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the High Court erred in holding that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction, and whether the jurisdictional confusion warrants condonation of delay for the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that contradictory judicial determinations regarding the appropriate forum for redress should not prejudice a litigant's right to pursue remedies on merits.
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction over employees of GEPCO?
- Whether the High Court correctly held that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the service dispute of a corporate entity owned by the Federal Government?
- Does confusion over the appropriate judicial forum entitle an aggrieved employee to condonation of delay in pursuing legal remedies?
- Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000
ORDER
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Through this petition, leave is sought against the judgment dated 5-7-2010 vide which petitioner's appeal was disposed of for lack of jurisdiction as the Tribunal observed as follows:-- "The appellant is an employee of GEPCO and GEPCO is not governed by the statutory rules, hence the Tribunal has no jurisdiction despite the fact that penalty has been imposed on the appellant under the provisions of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Reference is made to a recent judgment dated 13-4-2010 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan passed in Civil Petitions Nos. 1863 of 2009, 2191 of 2005, 804-K of 2009, 1247 of 2009, 12-K, 13-K and 62-64 of 2010 as well as several judgments given by this Tribunal in similar cases. The appeal is thus abated as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.' The appellant may seek remedy from the appropriate forum.
' Parties be informed."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had challenged the order of the competent authority before the appropriate forum i,e,, the learned Labour Court which allowed his petition but the said order was challenged by the respondent Department in Labour Appeal No, 449 of 2006 before the learned High Court and the learned High Court allowed the appeal on the ground that since the respondent Company was owned by the Federal Government and being a statutory body, its employees aggrieved of an order of departmental authority had to challenge the same before the Federal Service Tribunal and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. This order, according to learned counsel, is not tenable. Adds that when petitioner moved the Service Tribunal, his appeal has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide the impugned judgment on the ground reproduced in para 1 above.
3. On court query, learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to dispute that respondent Company is not statutory body and that the Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we were inclined to dispose of the matter with the observation that the petitioner may avail the remedy of review jurisdiction before the learned High Court but before we could sign the order, we found that the order of the High Court is dated 27-3- 2008. The review petition might be time-barred and even otherwise, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal for having no jurisdiction. In these circumstances, we are inclined to grant leave inter alia to consider as to whether the learned High Court could have allowed the appeal of respondent shortly on the ground that Labour Court had no jurisdiction and whether the confusion over jurisdiction would not entitle the petitioner to seek condonation of delay in challenging the said order.