Haji KHAN LASHARI And Other vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other
This matter involves a series of petitions filed by former employees of the Pakistan Steel Mills challenging the refusal of the Federal Service Tribunal to grant interim relief regarding their en-bloc termination on February 1, 2000. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the same interim relief—specifically the payment of ad-hoc salaries—that had been granted to another employee, Pasha Ahmed Gul, in a previous consent order by the Supreme Court. The Court held that the relief granted to Pasha Ahmed Gul was based on the consent of the respondents, who now vehemently opposed extending that concession to the current petitioners. Consequently, the Court declined to grant the requested interim relief. However, the Court directed that the petitioners were entitled to receive their final dues from the respondents, subject to legal formalities, and ordered the Federal Service Tribunal to decide the pending appeals within three weeks of the scheduled hearing date. The key principle established is that a consent order granted in one case cannot be automatically extended to other litigants when the opposing party refuses to consent to such relief.
- Can a consent order passed in one case be automatically extended to other petitioners when the respondent refuses to consent?
- Is an employee entitled to receive final dues from an employer pending the adjudication of a service appeal?
ORDER
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J. - This order will dispose of Petitions Nos. 575 to 685 and 697 to 701/K of 2000 as common questions are involved in these matters.
2. The petitioners were employees of Pakistan Steel Mills and'their services, en-bloc. Were terminated on 1.2.2000. They approached Management of the respondents and a Review Committee was constituted, which gave them interim relief in the way that they were allowed ad- hoc salaries up to May, 2000. Thereafter, they approached Federal Service Tribunal for redress of their grievances. The Tribunal admitted their appeals, but declined any interim relief and fixed the matter for hearing on 16.4.2000, which date later on was changed to 18.1.2001. Against above order, the petitioners have approached this Court.
3. It is pertinent to point out here that in a similar petition (CPLA No. 427-K/20Q0) this Court, by consent, had passed an order whereby interim relief was granted to petitioner Pasha Ahmed Gul, with regard to payment of ad-hocsalary and the petition was disposed of in terms thereof.
4. The petitioners contend that similar relief be allowed to them as was given to said Pasha Ahmed Gul. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed above plea and stated that the respondents are not willing to extend said concession to the petitioners and that even the respondents have filed a review petition for withdrawal of said order. It was a consent order and since the respondents are not willing to consent in these petitions, the relief given to said Pasha Ahmed Gul cannot be given to these petitioner.
5. It is an admitted position that the final dues of the petitioners are lying with the respondents and they are entitled to receive said dues, subject to completion of legal formalities, without prejudice to any of their legal rights, they will be entitled to draw back their final dues from the respondents who shall pay the same to them as early as possible.
6. The appeals of the petitioners are already fixed before Federal Service Tribunal on 18th January, 2001, which may be disposed of on that particular date or on subsequent date not later than three weeks thereafter. In above terms, the petitions stand disposed of.