Important Cases Decided by the Supreme Court

PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD. THROUGH CHAIRMAN VERSUS IQBAL NASIR AND OTHERS (P L D 2011 SUPREME COURT 132)

PTCL had introduced a scheme for its employees known as "Voluntary Separation Scheme", whereby, apart from other benefits which an employee was entitled to get, he was also entitled to receive early retirement benefits provided he had rendered a minimum of 20 years of service. Some of the employees, who applied for the benefit of VSS, were denied the same on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualifying length of service, whereas, others were terminated from service. They approached the concerned High Court through Constitution/Writ Petitions against the termination of their service, and/or denial of the benefit of the voluntary separation scheme introduced by the appellant. The High Courts allowed the Petitions and directed the PTCL to extend the benefit of VSS to the said employees as well; and the termination orders made by the PTCL or by the Foundation were declared void.
PTCL approached the Supreme Court by means of civil petitions wherein leave was granted to consider, inter alia, the contentions that writ in the matter could not be issued to the PTCL as it was not performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Government; and even if it was assumed to be performing such functions, still the subject matter of the impugned judgment was not connected with the affairs of the Government, and further whether the rules framed by the PTCL were statutory or not.
It was argued that the appellant PTCL was not a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation within the meaning of Article 199(5)
of the Constitution and the matters dealing with the officers and servants of PTCL, which vested in the EIP, were not functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation.
The court observed that in Muhammad Zahid's case, it was held that the employees of the erstwhile T&T Department transferred to the Corporation [PTC] under the relevant provisions of the Act of 1991 and later/on succeeded by the PTCL, discharging their functions and duties in the International Gateway Exchange as Operators were inducted permanently or regularized subsequently under the rules necessarily related to one of the affairs of the Federation within the purview of provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution. Hence, similar duties and functions in the International Gateway Exchange being discharged by the private respondents as Operators could not be distinguished to say that the same did not relate to the affairs of the Federation though conferred upon the Corporation [PTC], and finally upon PTCL; that PTCL fell within the connotations of the word ‘person’ as defined in clause (5) of the Article 199 of the Constitution; accordingly, the grievance of the private respondents was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. However, it was observed that the status of the private respondents, be that of a ‘worker’ or a ‘civil servant’ or a ‘contact employee’ had no nexus to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of discrimination meted out to them.
It was further observed that the learned counsel for the respondents, though they placed on record a copy of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Service Regulations, 1996, framed under section 20 of the Act of 1991, failed to show whether the said Regulations were duly notified in the official Gazette, However, even if such Regulations were duly made, they were not holding the field after the repeal of the Act of 1991 under which the said Regulations were made. Further, as per Regulation 1.02 thereof, the said Regulations would not apply to a person employed on contract or on work-charged basis or who is paid from contingencies; they would be governed by the principle of ‘Master and Servant. Applying the principles of law, the Court held that in the absence of statutory rules, writ petitions filed by the employees of the PTCL were not maintainable. Resultantly, the appeals filed by PTCL were allowed and the judgments/orders impugned therein were set aside while the appeals filed by the employees were dismissed.