SHAHNAZ PARVEEN vs PTCL through President and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a grievance petition by the Punjab Labour Court and the subsequent dismissal of a labour appeal by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), had opted for a Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS), which was accepted by the management. Subsequently, the petitioner challenged the validity of her option, alleging that it was exercised under coercion and fear of termination rather than voluntarily. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner's exercise of the option for the VSS was voluntary or coerced. The Supreme Court held that the determination of whether an option was exercised voluntarily or under duress constitutes a pure question of fact. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, as no question of law of public importance was presented. The Court affirmed that it would not adjudicate upon factual controversies already settled by lower forums without substantive evidence to support the petitioner's claims.
- Is the question of whether an employee's option for a voluntary separation scheme was exercised voluntarily a question of fact or law?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by a Labour Court and the High Court in the absence of a question of law of public importance?
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---The petitioner, an employee of PTCL, exercised her option for the-voluntary separation scheme (VSS), introduced by the management which was accepted by order dated 28-1-2008. Later, the petitioner took the plea that a fraud had been played upon her otherwise she would not have exercised her option. She, therefore, filed a grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court No,1, . Lahore, which was dismissed by order dated 7-5-2008. Her labour Appeal No,128 of 2008 was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the petitioner had exercised her option to avail the VSS retirement scheme only under a fear and threat that her services would be terminated. In much a situation she would have been left high and dry without payment of any benefits.
3. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have also perused the available record. The question whether the exercise of option by the petitioner was voluntary or otherwise cannot be decided by this Court being purely a question of fact. The controversy had already been set at rest by the Labour Court as well as the High Court. No question of law of public importance is involved in this case. It is too late before us to entertain and adjudicate upon the plea taken by the petitioner without there being any material to substantiate the same.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this IA petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.
Leave to .