PLJ 2019 Quetta 30 (DB)
Present : NAEEM AKHTAR AFGHAN AND ABDULLAH BALOCH , JJ.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, QESCO and others --Petitioners
versus
MUHAMMAD IQBAL & others --Respondents
C.P. Nos. 154, 155, 156, 207, 208 of 2012, decided on 23.6.2018.
Constitution of Pakistan 1973 --
----Art. 199 --Constitutional Petitions --Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, (XIII of 2010), S. 41 --
Requirement for post of Assistant Line man --Son quota --Scrutiny --Recommendations of --Selection
committee--Cancellation of --Grievance petition --Allowed --Appeal dismissed --Constitutional jurisdiction --
Concurrent findings --Challenge to --Competent authority had approved their appointments and
accordingly they have b een appointed on said posts and joined their duties, during course of their
service nothing was brought on surface that they have concealed any required information from
company, however, a letter of Pakistan WAPDA Hydro Electric Central LAbour Union (CDA) dated 10 -01-
2011 appearing on record, which was issued by Provincial Chairman and General Secretary of Union addressed to Chief Executive Office --Record further transpired that in all cases affidavits of private
respondents are very much available, wherein it was categorically mentioned that their brother; were appointed in different period much prior to appointment of private respondents purely on basis of merit
instead of any son quota and this fact was also nowhere denied by petitioners that appointment of their
brothers was not made on merits --Letter of Union, neither said condition was appeared in
advertisement nor covered under any statuary law, which is ultra vires of law constitution and act of
officials/petitioners found in excess of jurisdiction and tainted with malafide --Judgments passed by
Courts below are based on sound reasoning. It reveals that after properly appreciating evidence available on record, both Courts below have rightly declared cancellation orders of appointments of
respondents as null and void --Petitions were dismissed. [Pp. 35, 37 & 39] A, B, C & D
1993 SCMR 1533, ref.
Mirza Luqman Masood, Advocate for Petitioners (in Constitutional Petition No. 154 of 2012).
Mr. Inamullah Kakar, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 (in Constitutional Petition No. 154 of 2012).
Mirza Luqman Masood, Advocate for Petitioners (in Constitutional Petition Nos. 155 and 156 of 2012).
Mr. Najam -ud-Din Mengal, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 (in Constitutional Petition Nos. 155 and 156
of 2012).
Mirza Luqman Masoo d, Advocate for Petitioners (in Constitutional Petition No. 207 of 2012).
Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti, Advocate (in Constitutional Petition No. 207 of 2012).
Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Buzdar, Advocate for Petitioner (in Constitutional Petition No. 208 of 2012).
Mr. Inamullah Kakar, Advocate for Respondent (in Constitutional Petition No. 208 of 2012).
Date of hearing: 13.6.2018.
J
UDGMENT
Abdullah Baloch, J. --Since common question of law is involved in all petitions, as such, through this
common judgment the Petitio n Nos.154, 155, 156, 207 and 208 of 2012 are being disposed of, filed by
the M/S. QESCO (Quetta Electric Supply Company) through its Chief Executive Officer against the judgment dated 28.12.2011 passed by the learned 1st Labour Court, Quetta and dated 18.0 2.2012
passed by the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, Balochistan in C.P Nos.154, 155, 156,207 of 2012. While against the judgment dated 08.3.2012 passed by the Member Labour Appellate Tribunal, Balochistan in C.P No. 208 of 2012, whereby the grievance p etitions filed by the Respondents No. 1 have
been allowed, the appeal filed by the petitioners were dismissed.
2. The petitioners filed the instant petitions C.P. Nos. 154,. 155, 156, and 207/2012 with following
prayers:
“It is accordingly respectfully prayed that the impugned judgment dated 28 -12-2011 passed by the
learned Presiding Officer 1st Labour Court, Quetta and the judgment dated 18.02.2012 passed by
Member Appellate Tribunal may kindly be set aside and the grievance application filed by the respo ndent may kindly be dismissed being illegal, and void of merits, with cost throughout, in the
interest of justice, equity and fair play.”
And in C.P No. 208 of 2012 prayed with the following prayers:
“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the impugned order dated 8 -3-2012 may kindly be set aside
and the Appeal preferred by the respondent may kindly be ordered to be dismissed in the interest of justice equity and fair play.”
3. Brief facts of the above petitions are as under:
C.P No. 154 of 2012:
The p etitioners through advertisement invited applications for the post of different categories on the
basis of son quota of QESCO employees. The Respondent No. 1 Muhammad Iqbal son of Abdul Samad
was applied for the post of Assistant Line man and after observing all coddle formalities, he was
appointed as Line man on contract bases for a period of one year vide order dated 24.08.2010 under the
terms and conditions as mentioned in the appointment letter clause 2 (q); that the employment order
binding upon the ap pointee to furnish an affidavit on non -judicial stamp paper to the effect that none of
his brother/ sister is working in QESCO/ WAPDA and in case of any incorrect undertaking his appointment will be liable for termination.
It is further submitted that after joining report the Respondent No. 1 was failed to furnish the requisite affidavit, however, thereafter it was revealed that one of his brother namely Mr. Muhammad Khan is
already serving in QESCO as he was appointed on 19.6.1999 consequently for conceali ng of this fact the
services of Respondent No. 1 was cancelled in the light of clause 2 (q) of appointment letter dated
14.5.2011.
C.P No. 155 of 2012.
On the basis of same advertisement as stated above the Respondent No. 1 Zahid Khan son of Faqir Muhammad was applied and appointed on the basis of son quota as Assistant Line man vide order dated
24.08.2010 on the same terms and condition as stated above. He was also failed to furnish requisite information, however, thereafter it was came on record that one of his brother namely Muhammad
Ibrahim is already serving in QESCO and he was appointed vide order dated 20.06.1987 resultantly for
concealing of the fact the appointment of Respondent No. 1 was cancelled vide order dated 14.05.2011.
C.P No. 156 of 2012.
On the basis of said advertisement the Respondent No. 1 Abdul Khaliq son of Abdul Qadir applied and
appointed as Assistant Line man vide order dated 28. 08.2010 on failure of submission of affidavit and
requisite information with regard to the employment of his brother/sister subsequently it was revealed
that one of his brother namely Dad Muhammad is already serving in QESCO and he was appointed vide
order dated 22.03.2007, for concealment of the above fact as required under clause 2 (q) of
appointment letter, the appointment of Respondent No. 1 was cancelled vide order dated 14.05.2011.
C.P No. 207 of 2012.
The Respondent No. 1 Imdad Ali son of Ghulam Nabi applied on the basis of son quota and he was
appointed as Assistant Line man vide order dated 24.08.2010 and failed to furnish requisite information
with regard to service of his brother (no name was mentioned in the petition), however, it is mentioned
that his brother was appointed in the year 2003, as such, for concealment of such fact the appointment
of Respondent No. 1 was cancelled vide order dated 14.05.2011.
C.P No. 208 of 2012.
On the basis of said advertisement the Respondent No. 1 Abdul Manan son of Abdul Qadir applied for
the post of Assistant Line man on son quota basis and he was appointed on the said post vide order
dated 24.08.2010 on the same terms and condition as contemplated under clause 2 (q) of appointment
letter he was failed to furnis h information with regard to appointment of his blood relative,
subsequently his appointment was cancelled vide order dated 13.10.2010.
It is worth to mention here that in all above cases the Respondents No. 1 have filed departmental
representation fallow ed by grievance petition under Section 41, BIRA, 2010 before learned 1st Labour
Court, Quetta. The grievance petitions in C.P Nos.154, 155, 156 and 207 of 2012 were allowed by the learned 1
st Labourt Court, Quetta, whereby the order of cancellation of thei r appointments were set
aside and their services were restroed, however, in C.P. No. 208 of 2012 the grievance petition under section 41, BIRA, 2010 was dismissed.
4. Being aggrieved, the present petitioners filed appeal against the judgment of Labour Cou rt as well as
the respondent in C.P No. 208 of 2012 also filed appeal before the Learned Labour Appellate Tribunal
Balochistan and the learned Appellate Tribunal after hearing the parties dismissed the appeals filed by
the petitioners and allowed the appea l filed by the Respondent No. 1 in C.P No. 208 of 2012 and
restored his services in its original position. Hence, the petitioners assailed all the impugned judgments before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the judgments passed by the Courts below suffers from mis -reading and non -reading of evidence and mis -appreciation of law that the
advertisement appeared in the daily newspapers categorically mentioned the posts are reserved for son quota of the QESCO employees with t he condition that each and every qualified candidates must have
to furnish affidavit with regard to his brother/sister being already in service of the company; that the said condition was also incorporated under clause 2 (q) of appointment letter of each and every employee as penalty clause, but the private respondents have failed to furnish requisite information to the company, however, on thorough probe into the matter it was revealed that the brothers of each employee (private respondents) are already in service of the company, but this fact was concealed by
the private respondents, consequent whereof, their appointment letter were cancelled; that both the
Court below have failed to consider this important aspect of the case and comes to a wrong conclusio n,
which has resulted grave miscarriage of justice with the petitioners; that the impugned judgments of
Courts below also suffers from material illegalities and irregularities, which are not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
6. Conversely, the learn ed counsel for private respondents have vehemently opposed the contention so
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and contends that the petitioners were appointed purely on the basis of merits and their appointments were subsequently cancelled on the pressure and
connivance of the Union and nothing was brought on record that according to rules and regulations, the appointments of the respondents could be cancelled on the basis of such vague illegal policy being managed by the management and the office bearers of the Union; that the respondents have applied
being qualified candidates and their appointments were made after observing all coddle formalities and they have also rendered their services to the entire satisfaction of the company and no c omplaint
against the respondents was arises during the course of their service and half and suddenly cancellation of their appointment were based on malafide and ulterior motive of the petitioners; that the petitioners
have properly filed representations followed by grievance petitions under BIRA, 2010 before the learned
Labour Court and both the Courts below after proper appreciation of evidence had rightly allowed the
grievance petitions of the respondents and restored their services; that concurrent find ings of the
Courts below does not warrant interference by this Court.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely, which reveals
that petitioners invited applications for the post of Assistant Line man on the basis of son quota through
advertisement in daily newspapers, in pursuance whereof the private respondents have applied against
the said posts and after observing all coddle formalities and after thorough scrutiny the selection
committee had recommended the res pondents for appointment on the said posts; the record further
reveals that on the recommendations of selection committee based on proper verification of the
candidature of the private respondents, the competent authority had approved their appointments an d
accordingly they have been appointed on the said posts and joined their duties, during the course of
their service nothing was brought on surface that they have concealed any required information from the company, however, a letter of Pakistan WAPDA Hydr o Electric Central LAbour Union (CDA) dated 10 -
01-2011 appearing on record, which was issued by the Provincial Chairman and General Secretary of the
Union addressed to the Chief Executive Office, Quetta for convenience the aforesaid letter is
reproduced as under:
8. It is pertinent to mention here that neither the above letter of Union is covered under any statuary
law, rules and regulations nor described any particular with regard to any of the private respondents or
their relatives that they are in service of the company, the said letter is vague in nature just to blackmail
the management and by the garb of so called policy to pick and choose the appointments of their own
wish and will even there is no charter of demand available on record to ascertain that the said policy
was agreed/settled between the Union and the Employer for the welfare of the workers of the company. If the same be that even then the same does not cover under any statutory law and would be
void abinitio and ultra vires of law. The record furth er transpired that in all cases the affidavits of the
private respondents are very much available, wherein it was categorically mentioned that their brother
were appointed in different period much prior to the appointment of the private respondents purely on the basis of merit instead of any son quota and. this fact was also nowhere denied by the petitioners that the appointment of their brothers was not made on merits.
9. The petitioners mainly stressed on clause 2 (q) of the appointment letter for conven ience the clause
2 (q) of appointment letter is reproduced as under:
“He will also be required to furnish an affidavit on non judicial stamp paper that there is no other
brother/sister working under QESCO/WAPDA and in case there undertaking is found incorr ect at later
stage then their services will be liable for termination.”
The above condition was admittedly inserted by the management on the pressure of Union as
transpired from above quoted letter of Union, neither the said condition was appeared in the
advertisement nor covered under any statuary law, which is ultra vires of law/ constitution and act of
officials/petitioners found in excess of jurisdiction and tainted with malafide . Hence excessive use of
lawful powers is itself unlawful as held by the Ho n'ble Apex Court in the case of “Independent
Newspaper vs. Chairman for the wage Board, 1993 SCMR 1533”.
10. Besides, the evidence so brought on record and the representative of the petitioners so appeared in
the trial Court in cross -examination has cate gorically admitted that in C.P No. 154/2012:
"ﯾہ درﺳت ﮨﮯ ﮐہ ﺳﺎﺋل ﻣﺣﻣد اﻗﺑﺎل ﮐﮯ ﺑﮭﺎﺋﯽ ﮐو ﺳﺎل 1999 "ﻣﯾں ﻣﯾرٹ ﭘر ﺑﮭرﺗﯽ ﮐﯾﺎ ﮔﯾﺎ۔
Likewise in C.P No. 155/2012 it was admitted in cross -examination by the representative of the
petitioners that:
ل زاﮨد ﺧﺎن ﮐﺎ ﺑﮭﺎﺋﯽ ﻣﺣﻣد اﺑراﮨﯾم اوﭘن ﻣﯾرٹ ﭘر ﺗﻌﻧﯾﺎت ﮨوا ﺗﮭﺎ۔" "ﯾہ درﺳت ﮨﮯ ﮐہ ﺳﺎﺋ
In C.P. No. 156/2012 it admitted deposed by the representative of the petitioners:
""ﯾہ درﺳت ﮨﮯ ﮐہ ﺳﺎﺋل ﻋﺑداﻟﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﮐﺎ ﺑﮭﺎﺋﯽ داد ﻣﺣﻣد اوﭘن ﻣﯾرٹ ﭘر ﺗﻌﻧﯾﺎت ﮨوا ﺗﮭﺎ۔
In C.P No. 207/2012 it was obse rved by the learned appellate Court that the Respondent No. 3 Tariq
Iqbal submitted his affidavit, where in he acknowledged that he has no relationship with respondent
Imdad Ali son of Ghulam Nabi and also submitted photocopies of ID card of his own and hi s father.
In C.P No. 208/2012 It was also observed by the learned appellate Tribunal that the Superintending
Engineer/ Executive Engineer certified and verified that Mr. Abdul Qadir father of Abdul Manan
(Respondent No. 1) was/ is benefited WAPDA employee and he has not already availed the employees son quota. In the light of all above factual position observed by the learned Courts below the petitioners
have failed to made out a case for interference by this Court in constitutional jurisdiction.
The judgme nts passed by the Courts below are based on sound reasoning. It reveals that after properly
appreciating the evidence available on record, both the Courts below have rightly declared the
cancellation orders of the appointments of the respondents as null an d void.
For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we see no merit in all the constitutional petitions to warrant interference in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The petitions are dismissed with no order as
to costs.
(M.M.R.) Petitions dismissedThis judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.