Dr. REHMAT IBAD KHAN vs EMPLOYEES' OLD-AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION (EOBI)
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an office order transferring the petitioner from the Law Cadre to the General Cadre within the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI). The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute regarding the terms and conditions of service of an employee of a statutory corporation, or if such matters were exclusively within the domain of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that disputes concerning the terms and conditions of service for employees of statutory corporations fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to approach the Federal Service Tribunal for relief, while noting that the Tribunal should consider the issue of limitation sympathetically. The judgment reinforces the principle of exclusive service tribunal jurisdiction over service-related disputes.
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate service disputes involving employees of statutory corporations?
- Are disputes regarding the terms and conditions of service of employees of statutory corporations exclusively triable by the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Can a petitioner seek relief from the Federal Service Tribunal for service matters after the High Court declines jurisdiction?
- Section 2-A, Service Tribunals Act 1973
- Section 14, Limitation Act 1908
- Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.-- Leave to appeal is sought against the High Court judgment dated 10.12.1999 whereby Constitution Petition filed by the petitioner impugning the vires of Office Order dated 16.1.1999 issued by respondent No. 1 Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution (hereinafter referred to as the EOBI) transferring him to General Cadre, was dismissed.
2. After hearing the petitioner learned High Court came to the conclusion that the dispute essentially related to enforcement of terms and conditions of an employees of a statutory corporation to which the provisions of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act appeal.
Consequently in view of the decision rendered in Constitution Petition No. 1286 of 1999 the same day High Court directed the petitioner to approach the Federal Service Tribunal with the observation that the Tribunal will consider the question of delay and benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act sympathetically.
3. On the last date of hearing, after hearing the petitioner we found it fit and proper to issue notices to the Advocate General. As well as the Chairman, EOBI, to appear in person. Today Mr. VI. Samar Khan, learned Additional Advocate-General Sindh has appeared on the Court notice as learned Advocate-General is out of country.. Likewise Sheikh Barkatullah, Chairman E0Bi has appeared alongwith Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on Record.
4. Upon hearing the petitioner and the Chairman of the respondent EOBI we are of the view that the points agitated by the petitioner involve the question of seniority of the petitioner in Law Cadre in the respondent establishment who is of the view that the services of the petitioner were placed on deputation for being utilized in General.Cadre. Without expressing any opinion on the of the various orders am notifications we would endorse the view of the learned High Court that all related questions can only be gone into by the Federal Service Tribunal by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution. In this regard we are fortified with the view expressed in Aish Muhammad versus Pakistan (1985 SCM R 774), Ageela Asghar A.I versus Khalida Khatoon Malik (PLD 1991 SC 1118), Muhammad Karim versus Director, Health Services (1987 SCM R 295) and Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan versus lmtiaz Ahmed Gill (1999 SCM R 650).
5. Mr. Imam A.I Soomro Deputy Director, Law Cadre, EOBI. has voluntarily appeared to make a statement that he has preferred a service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal agitating the question of his seniority as against the petitioner which appeal is pending. Be that as it may for the reasons assigned hereinabove the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused with the observations that the petitioner may seek his remedy before the Federal Service Tribunal, if so advised.