RAWALPINDI: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has set aside a 2012 judegment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal that had dismissed the grievance petition of a government employee who was verbally terminated from his job without any show-cause notice or departmental inquiry.

Justice Jawad Hassan, while allowing the writ petition, expressed dismay that the case had remained pending before the court for nearly fourteen years, terming it “regrettable” and contrary to the constitutional mandate under Article 37(d) which obligates the state to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice.

The petitioner, Mohammad Akram, was appointed as a driver in a local government department on May 22, 1995. According to him, his services were verbally terminated on February 24, 2003. The labour court initially dismissed his grievance petition on jurisdictional grounds, directing him to approach the Federal Service Tribunal (FST). The FST also dismissed his appeal, advising him to file a departmental appeal.

The legal landscape shifted after the Supreme Court of Pakistan declared in Mohammad Mubeenus Salam vs the federation of Pakistan that employees of government-owned corporations are not “civil servants” and that labour courts have jurisdiction over such matters.

Taking benefit of the ruling, the petitioner got his case restored before the labour court, which granted him relief on April 9, 2007. However, the Labour Appellate Tribunal later overturned the order, principally holding that the application for recall was barred by limitation.

During the LHC hearing, it emerged that the petitioner’s original counsel had passed away, leaving him unrepresented. The court appointed Barrister Lamia Niazi on a pro bono basis to ensure the petitioner’s constitutional right of access to justice was not compromised.

Barrister Lamia argued that the tribunal erred by overlooking the exceptional circumstances where the petitioner had acted bona fide and pursued remedies before forums that were subsequently declared incompetent.

She placed reliance on Supreme Court precedents holding that delay occasioned due to prosecution before an incompetent forum deserves liberal consideration.

The LHC noted that the tribunal had failed to examine material legal questions, including the impact of the Mubeenus Salam judgement and the limitation issue. The court set aside the impugned judgement and restored the appeal before the tribunal, directing it to re-hear the matter within three months.

Published in Dawn, July 5th, 2026