PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (Pvt.) LTD. And Others vs ISHAQUE MIRZA And Other
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which accepted a writ petition filed by former employees of the Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (P.I.D.C.). P.I.D.C. was dissolved and its business and properties were transferred to Bannu Sugar Mills Ltd., a private company. Employees were given the option to join the new company or resign and receive admissible dues. Certain employees resigned and accepted their dues, but later challenged the transfer of their services and resignations through a writ petition. The High Court granted partial relief, entitling certain respondents to encashment of earned leave, notice period compensation, provident fund, and gratuity. The core legal question was whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition regarding contractual employment and issue a money decree. The Supreme Court held that contracts of employment are not amenable to writ jurisdiction, and the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition or pass a money decree on disputed facts without evidence. Leave to appeal was accordingly granted.
- Are employment contracts amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to pass a money decree in writ proceedings involving disputed questions of fact without recording evidence?
- Section 7(1), P.I.D.C. (Dissolution) Ordinance 1984
- Companies Act 1913
ORDER
1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners in both these petitions against the single judgment of a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court Bench, D.I.
2. Khan dated 24-1-1989, whereby writ petition of the respondents in these petitions was accepted.
3. The relevant facts of the case stated briefly are that P.I.D.C. Being a corporate body was dissolved with effect from 1-4-1985 vide Notification dated 27-3-1985 made under section 7(1) of P.I.D.C.
4. (Dissolution) Ordinance (LII of 1984) and the Bannu Sugar Mills, P.I.D.C. Entered into an undertaking with S. Abbas Shah, a private purchaser of the Mills that its business, projects and properties were transferred to petitioner No.1 w.e.f. The date of its dissolution. Petitioner No.2 was the resident representative of the P.I.D.C. At Peshawar, was permitted to continue as such of the petitioner No.1.
5. P.I.D.C. Entered into an agreement with the Bannu Sugar Mills Ltd. a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1913, to retain all the employees of the P.I.D.C. Then serving, at Bannu Sugar Mills Ltd on the terms and conditions then existing. A choice was then given by the P.I.D.C. To those employees of the P.I.D.C. Who were not willing to serve the Bannu Sugar Mills and desired to leave the service, the P.I.D.C. Shall pay the dues of provident fund and gratuity which may be admissible to them under the terms of their employment. Some of the respondents joined the service of Bannu Sugar Mills while the others tendered their resignation. The respondents who resigned from service were paid their dues which they accepted.
6. The respondents in these petitions filed writ petition in the Peshawar High Court, D.I.Khan Bench, praying that the action of the P.I.D.C. In "selling" their services to Bannu Sugar Mills Ltd. Was contrary to the terms and conditions of service and the resignations obtained from them were of no legal effect and that they continued to be the employees of the P.I.D.C. A learned Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine with regard to the prayer of their reinstatement in the service of the P.I.D.C. But after the receipt of the written comments from the P.I.D.C. The learned Judges of the Division Bench, vide their judgment dated 24-1-1984 accepted the writ petition in case of those respondents who had not opted to join the service of the successor Company to the extent that they shall be entitled to encashment of salary of earned leave upto maximum of 8 months and compensation for 180 days notice period besides the provident fund and gratuity which they had already received. Hence this petition for leave to appeal, We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the finding of the High Court. The learned counsel in support of these petitions contended that the disputed questions of facts are involved in this case which could not be adjudicated upon without putting the parties to issues and without recording their evidence and thus the High Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order for payment of undetermined amount without any evidence on the record.
7. It is an admitted principle of law that contacts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The respondents in these petitions were employed on contract basis and thus the High Court neither had the jurisdiction to entertain their writ petition nor can pass a money decree.
8. Under the circumstances and facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in both these petitions needs further consideration of this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted.
9. Appeals shall be made ready on the present record. However, the parties are allowed to file additional documents.