PAKISTAN STEEL CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. & 2 Other vs Syed UMER BAOI And Another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi, which had accepted the appeal of respondent No. 1, ordering his reinstatement in service with all back benefits. The respondent's services had been terminated by the petitioner corporation, purportedly under its Service Rules as a termination simpliciter. The Tribunal set aside the termination on the grounds that a Cabinet Division decision was not followed in letter and spirit, and that the respondent was subjected to discrimination and a policy of 'pick and choose' during an economy drive, evidenced by the subsequent employment of 112 persons. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no merit in the petitioner's argument that the termination was valid as a termination simpliciter under its rules. The Court held that the Tribunal's judgment suffered from no legal infirmity and refused leave to appeal.
- Can an employer justify a termination as a termination simpliciter under its Service Rules if there is evidence of discrimination and a 'pick and choose' policy?
- Whether the subsequent employment of other persons after a termination on the pretext of an economy drive invalidates the termination of an employee?
- Does the failure to follow a Cabinet Division decision in letter and spirit constitute a valid ground for the Federal Service Tribunal to set aside a termination order?
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.- Leave is sought against the judgment dated 3.3.2001 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi through which appeal filed by respondent No. 1 against the order of his termination from service, was accepted and he has been ordered to be reinstated in service with all back benefits.
2. The order of termination of service of respondent No. 1 has been set aside by the Tribunal on the ground firstly that decision of the Cabinet Division was not followed in letter and spirit and further that if there was any need to decrease the strength of the employees on account of economy drive, the respondent had been discriminated against inasmuch as there was element of pick and choose, for, after termination of his services, as many as 112 persons were further employed.
3. There is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that order of termination of service of respondent No. 1 was passed under the Service Rules framed by the Board of petitioner's Corporation and not on 'the charge of corruption, therefore, it was a case of termination simpliciter.
4. The judgment of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity, therefore, this petition- being meritless is hereby dismissed and leave refused.