ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday restrained Chief Justice of Peshawar High Court (PHC) Waqar Ahmed Seth from hearing a case relating to terms and conditions of services of contract employees in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Workers’ Welfare Board.

Headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Gulzar Ahmed, the Supreme Court also summoned the registrar of the PHC to appear in person on the next date of hearing of the case. Notices were also issued to Attorney General Khalid Jawed Khan and KP Advocate General by the top court to appear before it next week.

The SC directives were issued on an appeal filed by Advocate Khawaja Azhar on behalf of the chairman of the KP Workers’ Welfare Board against the Feb 17 rejection by the Peshawar High Court Chief Justice a request to constitute a larger bench to hear the case relating to the regularisation or reinstatement of an employee from Swabi who was working as a teacher at the Folks Grammar High Secondary School.

AG, advocate general among those summoned by Supreme Court on next hearing

Advocate Khawaja Azhar argued that the PHC had rendered a number of judgments which sometimes followed the precedent of the Naimatullah case verdict rendered by the Supreme Court while on numerous occasions, the same precedent had not been followed.

At this the Supreme Court asked Mr Rasheed whether the high court was ignoring the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court. The top court was, however, informed by the counsel that only Bench 1 of the PHC was not following the SC judgment on the issue.

That was why, Mr Rasheed said, he had moved the appeal in the Supreme Court highlighting that the rejection of his request for constitution of a larger PHC bench had been done in haste without taking notice that a number of petitions had earlier been decided in contravention of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the Jan 2018 Naimatullah versus Workers Welfare Board case.

He argued that the Supreme Court had decided in the Naimatullah case that the contract employees had no right to approach high courts directly for regularisation of their services or their reinstatement especially when no law was available in this regard. While deciding the Naimatullah case, the top court had held that such contract employees could approach the lower judiciary for redressal of their grievances.

The counsel contended that through his earlier application filed in the high court, he had only prayed for constitution of a larger bench to resolve this controversy permanently, but the chief justice of the Peshawar High Court dismissed his request with an observation that the high court had rendered identical views and as such there was no need for constitution of a larger bench.

The appeal contended that the high court order would result in multiplication of litigations on a settled point of law since conflicting judgments were being rendered every day on the question that contract employees could not be regularised in the constitutional jurisdiction of the high court.

The appeal contended that the petitioner, the KP Workers Welfare Board, had been left with no remedy but to approach the Supreme Court.

Mr Rasheed said that the rejection of his request for constitution of the larger bench was in conflict with the verdict of the Supreme Court on the matter.

After hearing arguments of Mr Rasheed, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of the case till next week at a date to be fixed later.

Published in Dawn, April 11th, 2020