ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned hearing of the review petitions, filed by the federal government and the sacked employees against judgment declaring Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 ultra vires of the Constitution till Tuesday.
A five-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin and Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan, heard review petitions filed by the government and sacked workers against the judgment, which struck down the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance Act, 2010.
During the course of proceedings, Justice Bandial said that the court would hear other lawyers after hearing the arguments of Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Khalid Jawed Khan.
The AGP said that he had submitted written synopsis in the case. He said that these employees were fired under a letter dated November 7, 1996 from the Establishment Division.
Justice Mansoor asked how many departments’ employees were affected by the decision of the Supreme Court?
The AGP said that around 16 departments’ 16000 employees got affected while the Establishment Division claimed that around 5000 employees got affected.
He said that these employees were recruited from 1993 to 1996 and these employees were fired at different times until 1999.
Justice Bandial asked did the law entitle these employees to a pension? The AGP responded that according to his opinion, these employees would not be entitled to pension.
Justice Bandial asked whether employees recruited under the Ordinance and the Act were permanent or on daily wage. The AGP replied that most of employees were permanent.
He said that employees challenged their seniority in courts. He said that the Supreme Court issued notice to the Attorney General on the petitions but it was not a notice under Article 27-A.
Justice Mansoor said that the high court had not ruled on the ordinance or the act. Justice Bandial said that issuance of a notice was a formality but the court decided the case after hearing the Attorney General’s Office. The Constitution empowered the apex court to deliver justice, he added.
He said that the affected employees were not recruited under any procedure and the apex court in its decision also examined the recruitment procedure.
He said that there should be a criteria for recruitment on government posts. He clarified that he was not saying that the government could not recruit and the government could only recruit employees according to the law.
Addressing the AGP, he said that employees were terminated without any legal procedure. The court had taken an oath to protect the Constitution, he added.
He said that court decisions served as a precedent for future and someone had to take a stand for the future.
Justice Mansoor said that all employees were not fired under a letter or a government order. It was true that employees had no role in unconstitutional legislation, he added.
He said that the restoration law could not be re-enacted again as the court had ruled over the matter. The Parliament could give any relief to the employees on ten years of service, he added.
The AGP said that the Parliament was defending the Act through the government and him (AGP).
Justice Qazi Amin asked could there be a system of governance beyond the Constitution? The government had earlier opposed the reinstatement of employees while in the review petition, the government wanted to reinstate the employees, he added.
The AGP said that three daughters of a fired employee were expelled from school for non-payment of fees. He said that he was aware that the courts took decisions based on the law, not popularity. If the same case had come up in 2010, he would have opposed the reinstatement of employees, he added.
Upon this, Justice Sajjad said that he (AGP) was acknowledging that the Reinstatement law was unconstitutional.