ISLAMABAD, Jan 16: The Supreme Court of Pakistan was on Monday requested to interpret the Constitution as an organic whole by harmonizing its different provisions to make it an effective instrument.

A nine-judge bench of the apex court was hearing about 4,000 appeals seeking an authoritative judgment on constitutionality of Section 2A of the Services Tribunal Act of 1973.

The appellants have sought a verdict on whether the said section is in consonance with Article 212 (administrative courts and tribunals) of the Constitution of 1973 and whether employees of corporations are entitled to appeal before the Services Tribunal under this section.

The appellants belong to the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Ministry of Defence, Sui Southern Gas Company (SSGC), National Bank of Pakistan, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC), State Bank of Pakistan, State Life Insurance, United Bank Limited, Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited, Pakistan Air Force Colleges and other public sector organisations.

The bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry will continue hearing arguments on Tuesday.

Muhammad Akram Sheikh, counsel for the PAF Inter-College Sargodha, the PIA and the SSGC, argued that Section 2A of the act was not ultra vires to the Constitution as Article 212 did not define service of Pakistan. He pleaded that striking down section 2A of the act at this juncture would deprive employees of an opportunity to have a verdict from members of the Services Tribunal who had experience and wisdom of dealing exclusively with matters involving administration of services.

The counsel further submitted that the principle of harmonious construction should be adopted by courts keeping in view the constitutional goal of establishing an egalitarian society which was free form exploitation and was based on social, political and economic justice.

Elimination of exploitation of all kinds to ensure equitable adjustment of rights between employer and employee was a positive obligation of the state as envisaged in Articles 3 and 38(a) of the Constitution, the counsel said, adding that all forms of labour where redress was not provided or service was on ‘take it or leave it’ basis, squarely fell within the definition of ‘forced labour’.

Mr Sheikh argued that the expression “service of Pakistan” needed to be interpreted in harmony with Articles 2-A, 4, 9, 10, 23, 24, 25 of the Constitution which facilitated enforcement of fundamental rights and constitutional guarantees to employees of the corporations owned or controlled by the federal or provincial governments.

The courts, he pleaded, should guard their jurisdiction and, therefore, allow access to justice to employees of corporations.

“Provision of inexpensive and expeditious justice is also one of the constitutional objectives and an obligation of the state,” he said, adding that any interpretation given to the expression ‘service of Pakistan’ should yield to this constitutional objective.

Mr Sheikh submitted that section 2A was inserted in the Services Tribunal Act of 1973 to enlarge its scope keeping in view the fact that there was no alternative legal remedy and that the high courts were already overburdened with constitutional petitions of employees against injustice or mal-administration of one kind or the other.