Apex Court Reinstates Thousands of Fired Employees

 

Apex Court Reinstates Thousands of Fired Employees

• Rejects requests for revision of the August 17 ruling
• Dissenting Mansoor calls on the judiciary to recognize the central role of the legislature

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday restored dismissed government employees to their August 17 positions, causing the employees who gathered on Constitution Avenue to breathe a sigh of relief and disperse as they shout slogans in favor of justice.

With a majority of four to one, the bench of five judges threw petitions to review the judgment of 17

On August 17, on the eve of his retirement, Judge Mushir Alam ruled illegal and unconstitutional a PPP-era law called the Reinstatement Ordinance Act 2010 (SERA), which hired or promoted a number of people.

However, in his dissent note, Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah accepted the petitions and reinstated the employees under certain conditions, emphasizing that parliamentary sovereignty or legislative supremacy is the cornerstone of a strong democracy and that the judiciary is therefore the central role of the legislature must acknowledge.

Outside the Supreme Court premises, large numbers of the staff and their families, including women and children, spent the cool night before hoping that dawn might bring them the good news. And they breathed a sigh of relief when they heard the verdict from their colleagues.

The majority vote dismissed the petitions, stating that the Dismissed Workers (Reinstatement) Act of 2010 violated Articles 25 (equality of citizens), 18 (which guarantees freedom of trade, business or occupation), 9 (personal safety) and 4 (rights of the individual to be treated according to the law) of the constitution so that the SERA is null and void under Article 8 (laws that are null and void with or deviate from the fundamental rights), it said in the abridged version.

Relying on the original jurisdiction under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 187, the Court found, with regard to the services provided by the re-employed workers, that the workers who were in employment at the time of their original termination of employment had been withdrawn Nov 1. 1996 to October 12, 1999 - did not require a proficiency test, school or professional test for the appointment and would apply from the date of the judgment under appeal (17 applicable on the date of their termination under the August 17 judgment.

Likewise, employees who require the passing of an aptitude, school or professional test in order to be hired will be able to do so from the age of 17.

However, the majority vote emphasized that any improvement in the service conditions of all re-employed employees would be granted in strict accordance with laws and regulations.

In the brief appointment, it was made clear that employees whose dismissal has been dismissed for incapacity, misconduct, corruption, misappropriation of money/shares or for medical reasons will not be granted the right to reinstatement if the dismissal has not been finally revoked by a court.

Meanwhile, Judge Mansoor Shah, in his disagreement, stressed that parliamentary sovereignty, or legislative supremacy, is the cornerstone of a strong democracy. We must therefore recognize the central role of the legislature, he noted, adding that undermining the legislature undermines democracy.

Judge Shah noted that both the legislature and the judiciary must play their roles in a spirit of deep respect for one another and within the limits set by the constitution. The rule of law is not just public order, but social justice based on public order, noted Judge Shah, adding that the law existed to ensure decent social life by balancing the needs of society and individuals, and the courts must protect this rich concept of the rule of law.

According to Article 8 of the Constitution, any law passed by the legislature is void only to the extent that it removes or restricts the fundamental rights of the people, said Judge Shah.

Judge Shah's minority ruling accepted the review motions and held Sections 4 (a) and 10 of the SERA to be ultra vires regarding re-employment and regularization on a higher scale, which gave re-hired employees an undue advantage at the expense of the rights of those already working regular employees and thereby violate their fundamental rights.

However, the provisions of these sections, with the exception of the words one scale higher, will remain in effect from the date the SERA entered into force, implying reinstatement and regularization on the same or restructured scale, grade, cadre, group, post or title, wrote Justice Shah.

According to the ruling, Sections 2 (f) (vi), 11, 12 and 13 are the reinstatement and regularization of dismissed workers who have been dismissed for refusal to serve, misconduct, misappropriation of state funds or shares or unfit for medical reasons, and the determination its guilt or medical unfit became final by being unchallenged or unsuccessfully challenged. These workers do not fall into the class of laid-off workers who have been the victims of political victimization, earmarked for favorable treatment by the SERA, and they themselves do not constitute a separate class with an understandable distinction that is proportionate to the purpose and purpose of the SER.

All employees whose employment relationship was terminated as a result of the contested judgment will be put back into service with effect from the date of termination and receive remuneration for the interim period, which is treated as special leave with remuneration.

The proceedings decided by the judgment under appeal, which has now been recalled, are considered pending and will be decided by the ordinary courts of the Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions of the SERA.