Apex court hears review petitions against judgment to declare Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 ultra vires of Constitution and Civil Servants Act 1973

ISLAMABAD   -  A five-member larger bench of Supreme Court of Pakistan on Tuesday conducted hearing of the review petitions of the federal government and the sacked employees against its judgment declaring Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 ultra vires of the Constitution and the Civil Servants Act 1973. The bench, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, deferred the hearing in the case till today.

During the hearing, Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, representing sacked employees of Intelligence Bureau (IB), argued that the judgment which void the Act 2010 should be applied prospectively and the Act should be void from the date of announcement of the judgment and not retrospectively. 

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah questioned that can the court strike down the Act. Aitzaz replied yes but said that the court normally saves the legislation and even if the court voids any law then its effect should be prospective. He, in defence of his argument, cited many judgments of the apex court, including Sindh High Court Bar Association, National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), Judges pension case, and the judgment with regard to the constitution of Islamabad High Court (IHC).

Aitzaz Ahsan said though the Supreme Court in 2009 had declared that the IHC was constituted wrongly, but it protected its employees and directed that its (IHC) employees be absorbed in the federal surplus pool. The judgment on Sacked Employees should have protected the workers. 

Aitzaz argued that the Supreme Court in Sacked Employees case heavily relied upon the judgment of Justice Amir Hani Muslim, which is basically about the validation of the act of the executive and it is not relevant to his case, as the law was passed to cure the defect. He said it was beneficial legislation, adding it is in the Parliament domain to pass law for extending relief to the terminated employees. 

Justice Mansoor said that many workers since 1947 were removed from government jobs, then why the Act was passed in 2010 to extend benefit only to a certain class of workers. He said thousands of workers were terminated before and after specific period (1997) but no law was passed to restore them. He said there were no peculiar circumstances that a disease broke out like COVID-19 or there was war like situation in the country due to that these workers were rendered jobless; therefore, the law was passed to reinstate them. 

Aitzaz contended that his clients were removed by the interim government, which was not competent authority. He further argued that the Supreme Court always guarded the principle of separation of power between the institutions. He said the Parliament power also need to be protected, adding that words like redundancy or superfluous power attributed to the Parliament, in the judgment, should have been avoided. 

Sardar Latif Khosa, appearing on behalf of 62 sacked employees of SNGPL and 200 State Life Insurance Corporation’s workers, argued that his clients are not civil servants and were never party before the proceeding that culminated in the judgment on Sacked Employees case.