KARACHI, Dec 20: Arguments continued before a division bench of the Sindh High Court on Thursday in the various petitions of Sui Southern Gas Company employees who have challenged the credibility and locus standi of the IBA tests for their removal from the service of the company.

The bench comprised the Acting Chief Justice, Sabihuddin Ahmed, and Justice Ali Aslam Jaferi.

Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, counsel for some of the petitioners, argued that this court had the jurisdiction in the matter under article 199 of the constitution because the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) could not go into the question of fitness.

It was his contention that service rules were binding on the departmental authority. He also argued that an order of the FST could only be implemented by the High Court.

Rebutting the position taken by the SSGC, he argued that the Supreme Court had not directed the department to hold IBA tests.

Mr Pirzada, who had earlier showed press clippings on alleged leakages in the IBA tests, questioned their credibility and locus standi, and maintained that these tests were not being held in accordance with rules or any decision of the court or the FST.

He contended that the IBA was not a competent departmental authority to conduct fitness tests. The IBA test had got no syllabus or any disclosed field of studies, he submitted maintaining that the IBA was a business school and had nothing to do with engineering or medicine.

His contention was that the action of the department authority was mala fide because it wanted to dislodge the judgment of the Supreme Court and the FST.

The fitness of an employee was determined before employment and not after appointment, he argued saying that the action of the gas company was discriminatory because no other government employee had been subjected to the same treatment.

Fitness could be used for holding a particular post and not for termination of service, he argued. The question whether the petitioners had been legally appointed or not could only be determined through a detailed inquiry which had not yet been held so far, he submitted.

Akram Shaikh also questioned the locus standi of the IBA tests and maintained that the Supreme Court had not made the IBA test mandatory.

It was also contended that the Supreme Court judgments in the Sarmad case could be applicable with prospective, not retrospective effect.

He argued that after the judgment in the Naraindas case by the Supreme Court there was mention of the IBA test. He contended that the SSGC rules were silent on the IBA tests.

He submitted that the matters which came within the ambit of the Naraindas judgment were past and closed chapters and the latest SC judgment, to which the SSGC counsel had referred to, could not be applied retrospectively and on past and closed chapters.

Jamil Mohammed Chaudhri, counsel for the SSGC, contended that the petitioners were not appointed, they were given stipend as trainees.

He said in order to avoid criticism of mala fide, the IBA, which was an independent body, was given the responsibility of conducting these tests.

It was contended that in the Sarmad case the Supreme Court confirmed the views on IBA tests in the Naraindas case. The Tribunal had directed to absorb them but section four did not give it the powers to give such directions. The Tribunal did not decide the fitness issue.

Mr Pirzada contended that Mr Jamil wanted to reopen the whole case by repeating the same points which had been rejected in the past.

The counsel for the petitioners contended earlier that they had already been issued letters of appointment pursuant to the decision of the FST, absorbing the petitioners in the service of the SSGC.

They argued that the SSGC had not filed any appeal with the Supreme Court and as such the order of the FST had acquired finality. It was also contended that the subsequent letter, requiring the petitioners to appear in IBA test, was without lawful authority and of no legal effect because the IBA test had no relevance for engineers.

As regards maintainability, they argued that the question of fitness of an employee was not hit by the bar contained in article 212 of the constitution and the FST had no power to entertain any appeal in which the question of fitness was involved.

Counsel for some other petitioners also argued that they were confirmed under the order of the FST, and now the company, under its administrative order, could not nullify the effect of the impugned order of the FST.

The matter has now been fixed for Jan 2.