January 21, 2006	Saturday	Zilhaj 20, 1426

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

ISLAMABAD, Jan 20: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Friday reserved its judgment on a question whether Section 2A of the Service Tribunal Act 1973 is against Article 212 (administrative courts and tribunals) of the Constitution and whether employees of corporations are entitled to appeal to the Federal Service Tribunal under this section.

The nine-judge bench was headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry.

Attorney General of Pakistan Makhdoom Ali Khan, senior counsel Abdul Hafiz Pirzada, Mohammad Akram Sheikh, Khalid Anwar, Wasim Sajjad, President Supreme Court Bar Association Malik Mohammad Qayyum, Syed Iftikhar Gillani, Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, Dr Babar Awan and Hafiz S. A. Rehman appeared on behalf of some 2,563 petitioners who have raised the law point and sought the court’s verdict.

Majority of the appellants, mainly from Sindh and Balochistan, belong to the ministries of Petroleum and Natural Resources and Defence, Sui Southern Gas Company, National Bank of Pakistan, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, State Bank of Pakistan, State Life Insurance, United Bank Limited, Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited, Pakistan Air Force Colleges etc.

On Friday, senior Advocate Mohammad Akram Sheikh argued that employees of public sector corporations could not be treated as private individuals because these corporations were instruments of the state.

During five days of hearing no lawyer said there was any constitutional defect in Section 2A; instead they pointed out certain practical difficulties.

The counsel submitted that the executive authority of the federation was co-extensive with its legislative authority in terms of Article 97 of the Constitution and if the federation, despite having legislative competence, decided not to make laws for appointment and terms and conditions of service of employees of state corporations, there was no impediment in its way to do so. He pleaded that such exercise of authority would not exclude such employees of state corporations from the ambit of the ‘Service of Pakistan’.

He said that any interpretation which might jeopardize earlier judgments of the apex court would lead to certain ‘misperceptions’, which the court should guard against.

Mr Sheikh said that fundamental rights required an effective forum for their enforcement and without such effective forum there was no concept of any fundamental right.

Referring to the parliamentary debate on Section 2A before its insertion in the law, he said that the objective of the legislation had clearly been spelt out in which the principle of master and servant had been done away with.

This principle, he said, had been a relic of colonial past and was buried at the time of the golden jubilee celebrations of Pakistan in 1997.

The counsel beseeched the court not to render any judgment bringing back the horrors of the draconian concept of master and servant.

He referred to an order of the Indian Supreme Court by which the Indian government was directed to nationalize ‘Rohtas Industries’ so that 10,000 workers earning their livelihood did not starve. Mr Shaikh said that as a law officer of this court he expected a benevolent judgment in favour of the salaried class.

Fundamental rights and privileges of those who depended on their salary for their livelihood could not be scarified at the alter of privatization or for convenience of the executives of state-owned corporations, he added.

Earlier, Advocate Dr Babar Awan submitted that Section 2A had been framed within the ambit of Article 212 through an act of parliament.

He pleaded that large commercial organizations and multi-nationals were lobbying for striking down Section 2A of the act and if this section was declared unconstitutional, it would deprive the workers of state-owned corporations of their rights and would advance interests of large companies.