PESCO, WAPDA HOUSE vs ISHFAQ KHAN S — 2021 PLC 148 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

PESCO, WAPDA HOUSE VS ISHFAQ KHAN S.48(4)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Labour Court, jurisdiction of---Scope---Policy, notification or an executive order---Power to strike down a policy, notification or an executive order if it infringed the rights of an individual or group of individuals or if it was found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of law or Constitution, rested exclusively with the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution, and a challenge could be thrown to such a policy, notification or the executive order by way of filing a Constitutional petition---Labour Court was not seized with such jurisdiction---In the present case, jurisdiction exercised by the Labour Court while directing an electric supply company to constitute a committee to grant promotion to the respondents against a quota while drawing analogy with other similar electric companies was beyond its scope---Appeal was allowed. Citation Name: 2021 PLC 148 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case PESCO, WAPDA HOUSE VS ISHFAQ KHAN If an order was void, without jurisdiction, ultra vires and passed in disregard of the law, any superstructure raised over it would automatically fall to the ground and it could not be sustained in the eyes of law. Citation Name: 2021 PLC 148 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case PESCO, WAPDA HOUSE VS ISHFAQ KHAN S. 48(4)---Labour Court, jurisdiction of---Scope--- Promotion policy of Peshawar Electric Supply Company (PESCO)---Respondents, who were working as regular Upper Technical Subordinate (UTS) in PESCO/appellant department, sought their promotion to the post of Junior Engineers/Assistant Managers (BPS-17) against 5% quota reserved for UTS graduate engineers---Appellant department/PESCO declined said request of respondents with the clarification that the said quota was meant for induction/direct recruitment and not promotion---Labour Court allowed grievance petition of respondents by holding that since there was 5% quota for promotion according to the policy issued by the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) and since all other similar electric companies were following the policy of WAPDA, the PESCO was also bound to follow instructions and policies of WAPDA---Legality---Admittedly, PESCO was a distinct entity, which had its own statutory rules---Law did not permit that a statutory body, which had its own rules, be compelled to adopt the rules of another separate entity---Labour Court only had the authority to interpret and deal with the respondents under the policy of PESCO, which clearly said that the 5% quota was for induction/direct recruitment and not for promotion---Clarification had been issued by PESCO that the posts in question were to be filled in by way of induction and not promotion, which meant that there would be fresh appointment and not the continuation of the earlier job---Labour Court had no power to direct PESCO to adopt the rules of WAPDA or similar constituent companies and had wrongly assumed jurisdiction---Appeal was allowed. Citation Name: 2021 PLC 148 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case PESCO, WAPDA HOUSE VS ISHFAQ KHAN S.37(1)---Grievance petition---Competency---Promotion policy of an organization/authority---Grievance petition would only be competent if the grievance was with regard to a 'right guaranteed under law, settlement, or award'---Word law used in S. 37(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Act, 2010 meant that it had to be a legal right guaranteed by the statute and not a policy of the organization. Citation Name: 2021 PLC 148 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case PESCO, WAPDA HOUSE VS ISHFAQ KHAN S.48(4)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Labour Court, jurisdiction of---Scope---Policy, notification or an executive order---Power to strike down a policy, notification or an executive order if it infringed the rights of an individual or group of individuals or if it was found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of law or Constitution, rested exclusively with the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution, and a challenge could be thrown to such a policy, notification or the executive order by way of filing a Constitutional petition---Labour Court was not seized with such jurisdiction---In the present case, jurisdiction exercised by the Labour Court while directing an electric supply company to constitute a committee to grant promotion to the respondents against a quota while drawing analogy with other similar electric companies was beyond its scope---Appeal was allowed. Citation Name: 2021 PLC 148 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case PESCO, WAPDA HOUSE VS ISHFAQ KHAN S. 48(4)---Labour Court, jurisdiction of---Scope--- Promotion policy of Peshawar Electric Supply Company (PESCO)---Respondents, who were working as regular Upper Technical Subordinate (UTS) in PESCO/appellant department, sought their promotion to the post of Junior Engineers/Assistant Managers (BPS-17) against 5% quota reserved for UTS graduate engineers---Appellant department/PESCO declined said request of respondents with the clarification that the said quota was meant for induction/direct recruitment and not promotion---Labour Court allowed grievance petition of respondents by holding that since there was 5% quota for promotion according to the policy issued by the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) and since all other similar electric companies were following the policy of WAPDA, the PESCO was also bound to follow instructions and policies of WAPDA---Legality---Admittedly, PESCO was a distinct entity, which had its own statutory rules---Law did not permit that a statutory body, which had its own rules, be compelled to adopt the rules of another separate entity---Labour Court only had the authority to interpret and deal with the respondents under the policy of PESCO, which clearly said that the 5% quota was for induction/direct recruitment and not for promotion---Clarification had been issued by PESCO that the posts in question were to be filled in by way of induction and not promotion, which meant that there would be fresh appointment and not the continuation of the earlier job---Labour Court had no power to direct PESCO to adopt the rules of WAPDA or similar constituent companies and had wrongly assumed jurisdiction---Appeal was allowed. Citation Name: 2021 PLC 148 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case PESCO, WAPDA HOUSE VS ISHFAQ KHAN S.37(1)---Grievance petition---Competency---Promotion policy of an organization/authority---Grievance petition would only be competent if the grievance was with regard to a 'right guaranteed under law, settlement, or award'---Word law used in S. 37(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Act, 2010 meant that it had to be a legal right guaranteed by the statute and not a policy of the organization. Citation Name: 2021 PLC 148 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case PESCO, WAPDA HOUSE VS ISHFAQ KHAN If an order was void, without jurisdiction, ultra vires and passed in disregard of the law, any superstructure raised over it would automatically fall to the ground and it could not be sustained in the eyes of law.

PESCO, WAPDA HOUSE vs ISHFAQ KHAN S — 2021 PLC 148 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 PLC