Sacked employees’ case: ‘SC judgement should be prospective rather than retrospective’

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was Tuesday asked to hold that its judgment’s effect which voids the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010, should be prospective rather than retrospective.

A five-judge larger bench, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, heard the review petitions of the federal government and the sacked employees against its judgment declaring Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 ultra vires of the Constitution and the Civil Servants Act, 1973.

Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, representing sacked employees of the Intelligence Bureau (IB), argued that the judgment, which void the Act 2010 should be applied prospectively, adding the Act should be void from the date of announcement of the judgment and not retrospectively.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah questioned can the court strike down the Act. Aitzaz replied, yes but said that the Court normally saves the legislation, adding even if the court void any law then its effect should be prospective.

He, in defence of his argument, cited many judgments of the apex court, including the Sindh High Court Bar Association, the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), judges pension case, and the judgment with regard to the constitution of the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

Aitzaz Ahsan said though the Supreme Court in 2009 had declared that the IHC was constituted wrongly, but it protected its employees and directed that its (the IHC) employees be absorbed in the federal surplus pool. The judgment on Sacked Employees should have protected the workers instead of destroying them, he contended.

Aitzaz further argued that the Supreme Court in the sacked employees case heavily relied upon the judgment of Justice Amir Hani Muslim, which is basically about the validation of the act of the executive, adding it is not relevant to his case, as the law was passed to cure the defect. He said it was beneficial legislation, adding it is in the Parliament’s domain to pass law for extending relief to the terminated employees.

Justice Mansoor said many workers since 1947 were removed from government jobs, then why the Act was passed in 2010 to extend benefits only to a certain class of workers.

He said thousands of workers were terminated before and after a specific period (1997) but no law was passed to restore them. He said there were no peculiar circumstances that a disease broke out like Covid-19 or there was a war-like situation in the country due to that these workers were rendered jobless; therefore, the law was passed to reinstate them.

Aitzaz contended that his clients were removed by the interim government, which was not competent authority. He further argued that the Supreme Court always guarded the principle of separation of power between the institutions.

He said the Parliament’s power also needed to be protected, adding that words like redundancy or superfluous power attributed to the Parliament, in the judgment, should have been avoided.

Sardar Latif Khosa, appearing on behalf of 62 sacked employees of the SNGPL and 200 State Life Insurance Corporation’s workers, argued that his clients are not civil servants and were never party before the proceeding that culminated in the judgment on sacked employees case. The case was adjourned until today (Wednesday).

Copyright Business Recorder, 2021