daily wage or contract employee cannot seek reinstatement through constitutional jurisdiction, and their only legal remedy is to file a suit for damages.
 |
| The court ruled that a daily wage or contract employee cannot seek reinstatement through constitutional jurisdiction, and their only legal remedy is to file a suit for damages. |
دیہاڑی دار یا کنٹریکٹ ملازم آئینی درخواستوں کے ذریعے بحالی کا مطالبہ نہیں کر سکتے
مقدمہ PLJ 2021 Lahore 573 (DB) ایک اپیل کے بارے میں ہے جو قانون اصلاحات آرڈیننس 1972 کے تحت دائر کی گئی تھی۔ درخواست گزار، شکیلہ نذیر، ایک دیہاڑی دار استاد تھیں جنہیں نیشنل سینٹر فار ری ہیبلیٹیشن آف چائلڈ لیبر یتیم (NCRCLO) اسکول بہاولنگر میں ملازمت دی گئی تھی۔ ان کی دیہاڑی دار ملازمت کو وقتاً فوقتاً توسیع دی گئی، یہاں تک کہ فروری 2013 میں وہ غیر حاضر ہوئیں جس کے نتیجے میں ان کی ملازمت ختم کر دی گئی۔
حکومت کے ایک فیصلے کی روشنی میں مستقل ملازمت کے لیے درخواست دی، لیکن ان کی درخواست مسترد کر دی گئی۔
انہوں نے مارچ 2013 میں حکومت کے ایک فیصلے کی روشنی میں مستقل ملازمت کے لیے درخواست دی، لیکن ان کی درخواست مسترد کر دی گئی۔ درخواست گزار نے اپنی برطرفی کے خلاف آئینی درخواست دائر کی، جسے سنگل جج نے مسترد کر دیا۔ اس فیصلے کے خلاف انہوں نے اپیل دائر کی۔
عدالت نے آئینی درخواست کے رد کیے جانے کو برقرار رکھا
عدالت نے آئینی درخواست کے رد کیے جانے کو برقرار رکھا اور اس بات پر زور دیا کہ دیہاڑی دار یا کنٹریکٹ ملازم اور ادارے کے درمیان تعلق "مالک اور ملازم" کا ہوتا ہے۔ عدالت نے اس بات کی توثیق کی کہ ایسے ملازمین اپنے ملازمت کی شرائط کے حوالے سے آئینی دائرہ اختیار استعمال نہیں کر سکتے۔
معاہدے کی کسی شرط کی خلاف ورزی ہوتی ہے تو ان کا علاج ہرجانے کے دعوے کے ذریعے کیا جا سکتا ہے۔
اگر ان کے معاہدے کی کسی شرط کی خلاف ورزی ہوتی ہے تو ان کا علاج ہرجانے کے دعوے کے ذریعے کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ عدالت نے سپریم کورٹ کے مختلف فیصلوں کا حوالہ دیا جس میں یہ اصول واضح کیا گیا کہ کنٹریکٹ ملازمین آئینی درخواستوں کے ذریعے بحالی کا مطالبہ نہیں کر سکتے۔
نتیجہ
لہٰذا، عدالت نے اپیل کو خارج کرتے ہوئے یہ اصول برقرار رکھا کہ کنٹریکٹ ملازمین کو ایسی صورتوں میں محدود قانونی چارہ جوئی حاصل ہوتی ہے۔
Must read judgement
PLJ 2021 Lahore 573 (DB)
Present: ABID AZIZ SHEIKH AND MIRZA VIQAS RAUF, JJ.
SHAKEELA NAZIR—Appellant
versus
DIRECTOR PROJECT PAKISTAN BAIT-UL-MAL, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 3 others--
Respondents
I.C.A. No. 762 of 2021, decided on 11.1.2021.
Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972--
----S. 3--Appointment on daily wages--Time to time extension--Absence from duty--Termination
from service--Filing of writ petition--Dismissed--Relationship of master and servant--Scope
for interference--Law is well settled that a daily wager or contract employee is precluded to
invoke constitutional jurisdiction of this Court with regard to matters relating to terms and
conditions of service, as relationship interse appellant and department shall be deemed to be
as of master and servant--Thus in case of breach of any of terms and conditions of contract or
any other issue ensuing therefrom grouse can only be remedied by filing a suit for damages--
There was no scope for interference in constitutional jurisdiction and Single Judge in
Chamber has rightly proceeded to dismiss constitutional petition--Petition dismissed [Pp. 575
& 576] A & B
2020 SCMR 2068, 2019 SCMR 984, 2017 SCMR 1979, 2014 SCMR 1573, 2019 SCMR
648 ref.
Chaudhry Nazir Hussain, Advocate.
Date of hearing: 11.1.2021.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is directed against the
order dated 17th November, 2020, whereby Writ Petition No. 22826 of 2016 filed by the
appellant was dismissed being devoid of any merits by the learned Single Judge in Chamber.
2. Facts in precision necessary for adjudication of instant appeal are that the appellant
was appointed on daily wages as Teacher for National Center for Rehabilitation of Child Labour
Orphan (NCRCLO) School Bahawalnagar (Chishtian) on 03rd May, 2011. She served the
department in above status for three years as she was awarded extension from time to time last of
which was w.e.f. 17th January 2013 to 20th April, 2013. The appellant absented
herself which resulted into her termination. The appellant while in service also moved an
application to the respondents seeking her regularizationjn the light of decision taken by the
Government of Pakistan Cabinet Secretariat Establishment Division Islamabad on 11th March,
2013. Having no other option she moved Writ Petition No. 22826 of 2016, which was dismissed
through order under appeal dated 17th November, 2020.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after rendering services for
considerable period the appellant was entitled for her regularization. He added that writ petition
was dismissed in oblivion of settled principles of law. Learned counsel emphasized that
impugned order is not tenable under the law.
4. After having heard learned counsel for the appellant at considerable length, we have
perused the record.
5. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was appointed on daily wages as Teacher
for National Center for Rehabilitation of Child Labour Orphan (NCRCLO) Bahawalnagar
(Chishtian). She was allowed extension in her employment from time to time and last extension
to this effect was granted w.e.f. 17th January, 2013 to 20th April, 2013. In the meanwhile, a
decision was made by the Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment
Division, Islamabad on 11th March, 2013 for the regularization of the government employees.
The appellant to this effect moved an application to the respondents but on their alleged inaction,
she filed Writ Petition No. 1998 of 2016 which was disposed of vide order dated 25th April,
2016 with the following observations:
“4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to direct that
Respondent No. 3 will look into the grievance of the petitioner and decide her pending
application dated 24.10.2013 strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably
within 30 days of receipt of certified copy of this order.
5. Disposed of.”
In pursuance to the order of this Court the respondents imparted information through letter dated
06th May, 2016 to the appellant to the following effect:--
“2. This is to inform that your request dated 24.10.2013 has been regretted by the
Managing Director on the following grounds:--
i. You were appointed on 30.4.2010 as daily wages Teacher-NCRCL. Your daily
wages period was extended from time to time.
ii. Last extension in daily wages period was granted from 17-01-2013 to 20-04-2013
but you attended the office last time on 18.02.2013 and left the office without any
intimation/prior approval.
iii. You admitted that when you came to know that your name was considered for
regularization by the Cabinet Sub-Committee while considering the list of the
employees forwarded by PBM before your leaving the service, you applied for
restoration.”
It appears from the above that last extension was though granted to the appellant w.e.f. 17th
January, 2013 to 20th April, 2013 but she absented herself w.e.f. 18th February, 2013 as a result
she was terminated.
6. Law is well settled that a daily wager or contract employee is precluded to invoke the
constitutional jurisdiction of this Court with regard to the matters relating to the terms and
conditions of service, as the relationship interse appellant and department shall be deemed to be
as of master and servant. Thus in the case of breach of any of the terms and conditions of
contract or any other issue ensuing therefrom the grouse can only be remedied by filing a suit for
damages. Reliance in this respect can be placed on Qazi Munir Ahmed vs. Rawalpindi Medical
College and Allied Hospital through Principal and others (2019 SCMR 648) wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court, while dilating upon the issue in hand held as under:
“12. We have also noticed that the dispute between the parties related to contract
employment. This Court has in various pronouncements settled the law that a contract
employee is debarred from approaching the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.
The only remedy available to a contract employee is to file a suit for damages alleging
breach of contract or failure to extend the contract. Reference in this behalf may be made
to Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Azam Chattha (2013 SCMR 120), where it has
been held that it is a cardinal principle of law that a contract employee cannot press for
reinstatement to serve for the left over period and can at the best claim damages to the
extent of unexpired period of his service. Therefore, it was correctly held that the
petitioner approached the wrong forum in the first place and the learned Single Judge had
exceeded his jurisdiction by interfering in a purely contractual matter.”
The same view was further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases
of Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Workers Welfare Board through Chairman vs. Raheel
Ali Gohar and others (2020 SCMR 2068), Maj. (Retd.) Syed Muhammad Tanveer Abbas and
another vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and another (2019
SCMR 984), Chairman NADRA. Islamabad, through Chairman, Islamabad and another vs.
Muhammad Ali Shah and others (2017 SCMR 1979) and M/o IPC through Secretary and others
vs. Arbab Altaf Hussain and others (2014 SCMR 1573).
7. After having an overview of the principles laid down in the above noted judgments, we
are of the considered opinion that there was no scope for interference in constitutional
jurisdiction and the learned Single Judge in Chamber has rightly proceeded to dismiss the
constitutional petition.
8. For the foregoing reasons, instant appeal fails, resultantly it is dismissed in limine.
(Y.A.) Petition dismissed