ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court noted that before removing from a job or taking any adverse action against any employee/ workman or civil servant he must be given a fair opportunity to respond to defend the action.
“It is an elementary rule of law that before taking any adverse action, the affected party must be given a fair opportunity to respond and defend the action. This principle does not lay down any differentiation or inequality between a quasi-judicial function and an administrative function/action. It applies evenly and uniformly to secure justice and, in turn, prevent the miscarriage of justice,” said the judgment, authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar. It also said that before taking any punitive or adverse action, putting an end to the services of any employee/ workman or civil servant, the precept of fairness and reasonableness commands that an even-handed opportunity to put forth the defence should be afforded.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan decided on an appeal of Town Administration Chak Jhumra against the verdict of Lahore High Court.
Changes in NAB law restored: SC declares ‘NAO 1999’ amendments null and void
Muhammad Khalid and Muhammad Iqbal Javed were dismissed from service through oral orders by Town Administration Chak Jhumra dated 03.04.2010 and 01-03-2011, respectively. They separately filed grievance petitions under Section 33 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 with the Labour Court, which directed the department to reinstate them as regular employee with back benefits. Town Administration assailed the judgments in the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal but that dismissed the petitions. Then the department approached Lahore High Court in the writ petitions which were also been dismissed.
Muhammad Khalid was appointed as Helper Electrician on 01-07-2007 and continuously performed his duties for three years and, several times, made requests to the department for regularisation of his services but the employer treated him as temporary employee and dismissed his service through an oral order on 03.04.2010. Whereas, Muhammad Iqbal was appointed as Driver Disposal Works on 22.06.2005 on temporary basis in Town Municipal Administration Chak Jhumra, thereafter, he was appointed as Naib Qasid vide order dated 22.08.2005. He performed his duties continuously for a period of six years.
The record reflects that both the respondent employees were performing their duties continuously and the length of their service, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners were calling it temporary or on daily wages basis, exceed much more than the provided nine months’ period and both were performing the job against a post of permanent nature.
The judgment said that the termination of service by a verbal order is alien to the labour and service laws of Pakistan and also against the principle of good governance.
The judgment said that in the case of Chairman Agriculture Policy Institute, Ministry of National Food Security and Research, Government of Pakistan Vs Zulqarnain Ali it was held that there is no provision under the Labour Laws or the Service Laws permitting the employer to terminate the services verbally without a written order containing the explicit reasons or cause of termination.
For disciplinary proceedings on account of misconduct, obviously a separate procedure is laid down which accentuates the issuance of show cause notice, holding inquiry unless dispensed with by the competent authority considering all attending circumstances of the case and after personal hearing, appropriate action may be taken in accordance with the law.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.