The Supreme Court on Thursday adjourned the hearing of the review petitions filed by the federal government and the sacked employees against the judgment declaring Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 ultra vires of the Constitution till Monday (December 13).
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 the 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 the proceedings, Advocate Hamid Khan counsel for the 1,122 sacked employees of Sui Southern Gas Company said that the 1,122 sacked employees of Sui Southern were from Sindh and Balochistan. He said that these employees were recruited in 1996 and they were terminated in 1997 and 1999.
These employees had become regular, so the Federal Service Tribunal reinstated them, he added. He said that the department challenged the FST decision before the Supreme Court while the apex court maintained the FST decision.
Upon this Justice Sajjad asked Hamid Khan to submit a copy of the court decision. Hamid Khan replied that the restoration decision was not on record, it had to be put on record.
Employees approached the Sindh and Balochistan High Courts to implement the Federal Service Tribunal decision, he added.
He said that the Balochistan High Court ordered the reinstatement in light of the Service Tribunal’s decision while the Sindh High Court gave an option to the employees if they wanted to be restored under the ordinance they could get restoration.
The Sui Southern Gas Company employees agreed before the SHC to implement of the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal under the ordinance, he added. Justice Bandial said that the court had to review the procedure regarding reinstatement of the employees.
He said that there would be separate implications of the Ordinance, Act and the high court decision. Justice Mansoor asked why the Act was issued to give relief to a specific group. He said that the court could not read the minds of lawmakers, however, the documents presented were silent.
He asked whether any benefit could be given to employees who served for 10 to 12 years. Justice Bandial said that the court decision also withheld the benefits of 10 to 12 years of service.
Hamid Khan said that an employee who was recruited at the age of 19 had now turned 40. Justice Bandial said that the court had to review the status of employees appointed through the ordinance.
He said that ordinance lapsed after a certain period and asked what would be the status of employees recruited under the ordinance. Justice Mansoor remarked that issuance of the ordinance was not a democratic process.
He said if this process continued then every government would issue ordinances for recruitments. He said that the Parliament was supreme in a democratic system of government.
Senior counsel Raza Rabbani said that he would submit various documents for the significance of the ordinance. No section of the Act was against the fundamental rights or the Constitution, he added.
Justice Bandial asked the Attorney General to argue on court queries regarding number of employees from the civil service and semi-government institutions.
