ADMINISTRATOR, DISTRICT COUNCIL, LARKANA and another vs GHULAB KHAN
This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order directing the payment of salaries to the respondents, whose services were terminated on the grounds of unlawful employment. The core legal questions were whether the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition due to the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and whether financial constraints justified withholding salaries of employees whose appointments were allegedly irregular. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that financial crises do not constitute a valid ground to deprive low-paid employees of earned salaries. The Court reasoned that the respondents could not be held responsible for irregularities in their recruitment process; rather, action should be initiated against those responsible for such administrative lapses. The Court affirmed that withholding salaries for work performed suffers from inherent vice and is void ab initio. The judgment reinforces the principle that legal formalities exist to safeguard the paramount interest of justice and cannot be used to facilitate arbitrariness or deny legitimate entitlements to employees.
- Can an employer withhold salaries of low-paid employees on the ground that their initial appointment was illegal?
- Does a financial crisis justify the non-payment of salaries to employees for services already rendered?
- Can an employer rely on recruitment irregularities to deny salary payments to employees who have already performed their duties?
- Article 212, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
ORDER
' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against order dated 10-3-2000 passed by learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Larkana, with the direction that payment of salaries be made to the petitioners w,e,f, 1-7-1998 till the date of termination of their services which were terminated on the pretext that their employment was not lawful.
2. Heard Mr. Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court who mainly contended that the High Court had absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain the petition to determine the question of their salary being related to the terms and conditions of their employment in view of the bar imposed under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is also contended that due to financial constraints it was beyond the competency of the Government to make payment of salaries which otherwise was not permissible.
3. We have not been persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that due to financial crises the requisite amount could not be paid as it would not be a valid ground to deprive the respondents from their salaries who are low-paid employees and their services have already been terminated. In our considered opinion their salaries cannot be withheld on the ground that their appointment was illegal being made in violation of the relevant recruitment rules and in fact action should have been initiated against those who are sitting the helm of affairs for such irregularities. The respondents cannot be held responsible in any manner whatsoever. In our view substantial justice has been done vide impugned order which cannot be disturbed on mere technicalities. The direction to withhold their salaries in fact suffers from inherent vice, it is void ab initio and cannot be given effect to. It is well-settled by now that the "Principal object behind all legal formalities is to safeguard the paramount interest of justice---Legal precepts were devised with a view to impart certainty, consistency and uniformity to the administration of justice and to secure same against arbitrariness, errors of individual judgment and mala fides." (2000 SCM R 556 at 561-C).
4. In these circumstances we find absolutely no substance in this leave petition which is accordingly dismissed.