Pakistan Case LawTHE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, IRRIGATION AND POWER
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the pay scale entitlement of former WAPDA employees transferred to the Irrigation Department. The respondents, initially employed as Tubewell Operators by WAPDA in National Pay Scale No. 4, were transferred to the Irrigation Department in 1978. Upon transfer, to avoid termination, they opted to accept National Pay Scale No. 2, consistent with the Irrigation Department's existing cadre. Subsequently, they challenged this pay fixation under Section 25-A(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Court initially ruled in their favor, but the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal reversed this, citing the employees' voluntary undertaking and the delay in filing the grievance. The High Court later set aside the Tribunal's order, directing the payment of the higher scale. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether work-charge employees, having opted for a lower pay scale upon transfer and acquiesced to that arrangement for years, remain entitled to their previous higher pay scale, and whether the High Court properly exercised jurisdiction despite the constitutional bar under Article 212(2).
- Can work-charge employees claim a higher pay scale after voluntarily opting for a lower scale upon their transfer and absorption into a new department?
- Does the bar under Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 preclude the High Court from exercising jurisdiction in service matters involving pay fixation?
- Does long-term acquiescence to a specific pay scale by an employee preclude a subsequent legal challenge to that pay fixation?
ORDER
FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is prayed for against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 20th October, 1993 in Writ Petition No, 253 of 1983.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the respondent Union Members were employed as Tubewell Operators by the WAPDA on work-charge basis in National Pay Scale No,4. They were working as such and in the year 1978 when the project in question was handed over to the Irrigation Department along h the Staff employed therein. However, at the time of such transfer the question of fixation of their pay as tubewell operator arose as WAPDA had recruited tubewell operators in National Pay Scale No,4 while on the other hand the Irrigation Department had employed their Operators in Pay Scale No,2. Such being the case in order to avoid their termination from service on such transfer, they opted for acceptance of their pay in National Pay Scale No,2. Accordingly, they were allowed Scale No,2 and were paid according to tubewell operators' scale of the Irrigation Department. The petitioners, however, after considerable delay filed petition under section 25-A(1) of the I.R.O., 1969 which was accepted on 26-11-1980. It was held that petitioners were entitled to National Pay Scale No,4. An appeal against this judgment was before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was accepted mainly for the reason that the transfer having taken place in the year 1978 and respondents/petitioners having given undertaking to draw the same pay as was payable to the employees in the same cadre in the Irrigation Department, the grievance Petition filed beyond the period after fixation of their pay in the Irrigation Department, set aside the order of the Labour Court and dismissed the Petition.
The aforementioned order of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal was challenged in Constitution Petition No, 253 of 1983 which was allowed by the learned High Court by judgment dated 20-10- 1993 and petitioners were directed that respondents be paid their pay for the date of their absorption from the Irrigation Department in the Punjab Government which they were drawing in WAPDA prior to their absorption in accordance with the decision taken on 28-4-1982. Leave is granted to consider; whether, the work-charge employees could be held entitled to the same pay on their transfer and absorption in the same cadre of the Irrigation Department in NPS-2 after they had opted for it and acquiescence for years, and as to whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction in the manner irrespective after bar of Article 212 (2) of the Constitution.
Judges on this bench
- Fazal Ilahi Khan582 judgments
- Fazal Karim464 judgments