ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday adjourned hearing of the review petitions filed by the federal government and the sacked employees against judgment declaring Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 ultra vires of the Constitution, till Tuesday.
A five-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin and Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan heard review petitions filed by the government and sacked workers against the judgment, which struck down the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance Act, 2010.
During the course of proceedings, Justice Bandial asked Advocate Waseem Sajjad who was representing two sacked employees of Sui Northern Gas Pipeline, Were the Sui Gas employees recruited through tests and interviews?
Waseem Sajjad said recruitments were made through walk-in interviews. Justice Mansoor asked how were expired contracts restored after 11 years? The counsel said employees were reinstated by a parliamentary decision.
SC decision neither mentioned any particular party nor it asked to fire employees of a political party
He said these employees were reinstated under the Ordinance and the Act. These employees were not fired on merit, he added. Justicae Sajjad Ali Shah asked how was the Employee Reinstatement Act in accordance with the Constitution? The court asked Waseem Sajjad to submit written synopsis in the case. Advocate Aitzaz Ahsan counsel for the Intelligence Bureau (IB) in his arguments said that the IB officers were civil servants and the court decision did not apply to them.
He said the caretaker government in 1996 fired IB employees. The caretaker government had no authority to dismiss employees, he added.
Justice Bandial said the SC ruled in the year 2000 on the issue of caretaker government.
Aitzaz Ahsan said the SC in its judgment misinterpreted the Employees Reinstatement Act.
Justice Mansoor said if the SC fired someone, then the legislation of Parliament could not restore that particular person.
Aitzaz Ahsan said the Act was not properly scrutinized in the apex court’s decision. An interim government came and fired several employees, he added.
Justice Mansoor said the decision of the SC neither mentioned any particular party nor it asked to fire employees of a political party. He asked why did Parliament benefit a particular group of people by legislating?
Advocate Iftikhar Gillani in his arguments said the SC itself had stated that the legislation of Parliament could not be annulled. No one could challenge the vision of the legislators, he added. He pleaded the court to review its decision.
