Latest news with #MuhammadAliMazhar
Business Recorder
7 days ago
- Business
- Business Recorder
Closure of industrial, commercial establishments: Sindh govt, not labour court, has jurisdiction to decide cases: SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court declared that under the Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 2015, the jurisdiction to decide cases of closure of industrial or commercial establishment is vested in the Government of Sindh, rather than the Labour Court. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, heard appeals against the Sindh High Court (SHC) verdict. The transitory facts of the case are that the petitioner (M/s Trio Industries (Pvt) Limited) was engaged in the business of printing of ceramic tiles on finished products manufactured by other ceramic tiles production companies. Due to the advancement of technology, the process of printing tiles has become an integral part of the manufacturing process, hence the petitioner's enterprise was no more a viable venture. The petitioner on 02.03.2017 applied to the Labour Department, instead of the Sindh Government, under Standing Order 15 of the Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act 2015 for permission to close down the factory. During the closure process, the respondents (employees of the factory) filed their Grievance Petition before the Labour Court and alleged that due to trade union activities, the petitioner has decided to remove them from service. They asserted that no proper application was moved to the Government of Sindh for seeking their approval in the closure of the establishment, which was the wrong method. SC determines right meaning of FMCG products The Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dismissed the grievance petitions. The respondents then filed appeals under Section 48 (3) of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 (SIRA). The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi directed the petitioner to deposit the stipulated amount of compensation within one month. The petitioner filed a constitution petition before the Sindh High Court, which was also dismissed. The petitioner's stance was that the Joint Director, Labour, represents the government and the application for closing down the establishment was rightly submitted to him, as he was the proper authority for submission of such application, and hence, intimation or notice to the Chief Secretary, Sindh, was not required. The judgment noted that under Standing Order 15 of the 2015 Act, an application for closing down the establishment was to be moved to the Government of Sindh, rather the Labour Department. If, under Standing Order 15, the application for permission to close down was not decided within 15 days of its submission, the said application could be deemed to have been granted/allowed, it added. It said there must be some well structured procedure and mechanism to deal with and decide the applications submitted to the Government of Sindh for closing down the establishment in terms of Standing Order 15 of the 2015 Act. 'No doubt, the powers are given to the government, but there is no procedure to decide such application except providing the outer limit of 15 days; that, too, is in favour of the employer, to presume that his application is allowed if it was not decided or responded to within 15 days. Therefore, a clean slate is accorded to the employer to immediately shut down the whole business/establishment without checking whether the action is bona fide or mala fide or, while doing so, if the full and final accrued dues of employees have been settled or not. 'On the contrary, while assuming jurisdiction to accord permission, it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the close down is bona fide and permission is granted after ensuring the payment of dues to the employees.' The judgment said there is a need to enact a fool-proof procedure to deal with, examine, and decide such applications after hearing the employer and employees/their representative/Trade Union/CBA, and then render a speaking order so that an aggrieved person may file an appeal in the Labour Court in terms of Standing Order 15 of the 2015 Act. The court recommended that some necessary amendments in the 2015 Act or some rules or Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are required to be enacted in the best interest of workers, to save them from unlawful removal from service in case of mala fide attempts/schemes, and also from deprivation of their lawful dues in case bona fide of employer is proved. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Top court orders fresh review of promotion case
In an interesting development, the apex court has remanded back to the High-Powered Selection Board (HPSB) the case of a retired civil servant for him for proforma promotion "de novo". A proforma promotion is a type of promotion given to an employee without a change in the current post, pay, or responsibilities, but with the intent to maintain parity with a junior or peer who may have been promoted due to structural or administrative reasons. The court has noted that the promotion should be considered in accordance with the exactitudes of Fundamental Rule 17 (FR 17) — with fair, impartial and meaningful consideration and deliberation of all Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) of the petitioner. "The entire exercise should be completed within a period of two months from receiving the copy of this judgment," said an order issued by a three-member bench led by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar. The petitioner, Ghulam Qadir Thebo, was promoted to BS-21 on April 3, 2013. He was, however, superseded thrice from consideration for promotion to BS-22 without assigning any reason. In the second meeting of the HPSB convened on October 5, 2017, the petitioner's name appeared at Sr No 07 in the seniority list of BS-21 officers. However, officers who were junior to the petitioner were promoted. In the third meeting, his name was at Sr No 04, yet once again, his case was not considered by the HPSB, and two more officers junior to him were promoted. The petitioner submitted departmental representations to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and Secretary Establishment Division. However, no response was received. ' According to the petitioner, the denial of promotion by the HPSB was in utter disregard of his fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 4, 9, 10-A, 18 and 25 of the Constitution. He later filed a constitutional petition in the Sindh High Court (SHC) in 2018. During the pendency of the petition, the HPSB again considered the petitioner's case and in the comments submitted by the respondents, certain allegations regarding his performance and integrity were levelled, which were entirely outside the dossier. The SHC later dismissed his petition on January 27, 2022. The SC noted that the question of eligibility correlates to the terms and conditions of service, whereas fitness for promotion is a subjective evaluation based on an objective criterion. "Though consideration for promotion is a right, the promotion itself cannot be claimed as a right. There is no vested right in promotion or rules determining the eligibility for promotion. "However, it cannot be lost sight of that an employee may, under the relevant law/rules, claim to be considered for promotion within the prescribed law, rules, regulations and policies providing criteria for promotion." It said the SC has ruled that if a person is not considered due to any administrative slip-up, error, or delay when the right to be considered for promotion has matured, and without such consideration, he reaches the age of superannuation, then obviously the avenue of proforma promotion comes into play for his rescue. "If he lost his promotion on account of any administrative oversight or delay in the meeting of DPC or Selection Board, despite having fitness, eligibility, and seniority, then in all fairness, he has a legitimate expectation for proforma promotion with consequential benefits. "The provision for proforma promotion is not alien or unfamiliar to the civil servant service structure but it is already embedded in the FR 17."
Express Tribune
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Proforma promotion: ex-bureaucrat's case remanded back to HPSB
Listen to article In an interesting development, the apex court has remanded back to the High-Powered Selection Board (HPSB) the case of a retired civil servant for him for proforma promotion 'de novo'. A proforma promotion is a type of promotion given to an employee without a change in the current post, pay, or responsibilities, but with the intent to maintain parity with a junior or peer who may have been promoted due to structural or administrative reasons. The court has noted that the promotion should be considered in accordance with the exactitudes of Fundamental Rule 17 (FR 17)—with fair, impartial and meaningful consideration and deliberation of all Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) of the petitioner. 'The entire exercise should be completed within a period of two months from receiving the copy of this judgment,' said an order issued by a three-member bench led by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar. The petitioner, Ghulam Qadir Thebo, was promoted to BS-21 on April 3, 2013. He was, however, superseded thrice from consideration for promotion to BS-22 without assigning any reason. In the second meeting of the HPSB convened on October 5, 2017, the petitioner's name appeared at Sr No 07 in the seniority list of BS-21 officers. However, officers who were junior to the petitioner were promoted. In the third meeting, his name was at Sr No 04, yet once again, his case was not considered by the HPSB, and two more officers junior to him were promoted. The petitioner submitted departmental representations to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and Secretary Establishment Division. However, no response was received. According to the petitioner, the denial of promotion by the HPSB was in utter disregard of his fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 4, 9, 10-A, 18 and 25 of the Constitution. He later filed a constitutional petition in the Sindh High Court (SHC) in 2018. During the pendency of the petition, the HPSB again considered the petitioner's case and in the comments submitted by the respondents, certain allegations regarding his performance and integrity were levelled, which were entirely outside the dossier. The SHC later dismissed his petition on January 27, 2022. The SC noted that the question of eligibility correlates to the terms and conditions of service, whereas fitness for promotion is a subjective evaluation based on an objective criterion. 'Though consideration for promotion is a right, the promotion itself cannot be claimed as a right. There is no vested right in promotion or rules determining the eligibility for promotion. However, it cannot be lost sight of that an employee may, under the relevant law/rules, claim to be considered for promotion within the prescribed law, rules, regulations and policies providing criteria for promotion.' It said the SC has ruled that if a person is not considered due to any administrative slip-up, error, or delay when the right to be considered for promotion has matured, and without such consideration, he reaches the age of superannuation, then obviously the avenue of proforma promotion comes into play for his rescue. 'If he lost his promotion on account of any administrative oversight or delay in the meeting of DPC or Selection Board, despite having fitness, eligibility, and seniority, then in all fairness, he has a legitimate expectation for proforma promotion with consequential benefits. The provision for proforma promotion is not alien or unfamiliar to the civil servant service structure but it is already embedded in the FR 17.' It said the FR 17 lucidly enumerates that the appointing authority may, if satisfied that a civil servant who was entitled to be promoted from a particular date was, for no fault of his own, wrongfully prevented from rendering service to the federation in the higher post, direct that such civil servant shall be paid the arrears of pay and allowances of such higher post through proforma promotion or upgradation arising from the antedated fixation of his seniority. "We have often noted that unjustified delay in proforma promotion cases trigger severe hardship and difficulty for the civil servants and also creates multiplicity of litigation." 'It would be in the fitness of things that the competent authority fix a timeline, with strict observance, for the designated committees on proforma promotions in order to ensure rational decisions are made expeditiously and implemented swiftly, rather than dragging all such issues inordinately or without any rhyme or reason,' it added.
Business Recorder
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Civil servant losing promotion due to delay entitled to proforma promotion, benefits: SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court declared if a civil servant, despite having fitness, eligibility, and seniority lost his promotion on account of any administrative oversight or delay in DPC or Selection Board meeting then he has a legitimate expectation for proforma promotion with consequential benefits. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, decided that on an appeal against the Sindh High Court (SHC) judgment dated 27.01.2022. The Court set aside the impugned judgment of the SHC and remanded the matter to the High-Powered Selection Board (HPSB) for considering the case of proforma promotion of the petitioner de novo in accordance with the exactitudes of FR 17 with fair, impartial and meaningful consideration and deliberation of all PERs of the petitioner and render a well-thought-out decision. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of two months from receiving the copy of this judgment. The judgment noted that the petitioner approached the High Court for his promotion from BPS-21 to BPS-22, and after attaining the age of superannuation, his case has become one of proforma promotion under FR 17. According to the backdrop of the lis, the petitioner (Ghulam Qadir Thebo), prior to reaching the age of superannuation was serving in BS-21 as Additional IG Police. He was superseded thrice from consideration for promotion without assigning any reason. Though in the second meeting of the HPSB dated 05.10.2017, the petitioner's name appeared at Sr. No. 07 in the seniority list of BS-21 officer, despite the fact the officers who were junior to the petitioner were promoted. In the third meeting, his name was at Sr. No. 04, yet once again, his case was not considered by the HPSB, and two more officers' junior to him were promoted. The petitioner submitted departmental representations to the prime minister of Pakistan and secretary Establishment Division; however, no response was received. He the approached the SHC contended that denial of promotion by the HPSB was in utter disregard of his fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 4, 9, 10-A, 18 and 25 of the Constitution 1973. The judgment observed that the provision for proforma promotion is not alien or unfamiliar to the civil servant service structure but it is already embedded in Fundamental Rule 17 (FR 17), wherein, it is lucidly enumerated that the appointing authority may, if satisfied that a civil servant who was entitled to be promoted from a particular date was, for no fault of his own, wrongfully prevented from rendering service to the Federation in the higher post, direct that such civil servant shall be paid the arrears of pay and allowances of such higher post through proforma promotion or upgradation arising from the antedated fixation of his seniority. It said; 'We have often noted that unjustified delay in proforma promotion cases trigger severe hardship and difficulty for the civil servants and also creates multiplicity of litigation.' It would be in the fitness of things that the competent authority fix a timeline, with strict observance, for the designated committees on proforma promotions in order to ensure rational decisions are made expeditiously and implemented swiftly, rather than dragging all such issues inordinately or without any rhyme or reason. This ultimately compels retired employees to knock on the doors of courts of law for their withheld legitimate rights, which could otherwise be granted to under the applicable service rules without prolonged litigation or court intervention. The Court noted that though it is a right of a civil servant that he be considered for promotion, but the promotion itself cannot be claimed as of right. 'There is no vested right in promotion or rules determining the eligibility for promotion. However, it cannot be lost sight of that an employee may, under the relevant law/rules, claim to be considered for promotion within the prescribed law, rules, regulations and policies providing criteria for promotion.' Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
05-07-2025
- Business Recorder
Pleas moved under 516-A CrPC must be decided swiftly with fair hearing: SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court held that application moved under Section 516-A Code of Criminal Procedure Code must be decided expeditiously after providing a fair chance to contest the legality of the seizure and the order must be based on cogent reasons as to why the vehicle should be released or not. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and comprising Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Salahuddin Panhwar ruled that in car superdari case. The petitioner (Ahsan Ali Dawach) was taken into custody by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for investigation of Rs3.2 billion pension funds scam, involving District Accounts Officials, Hyderabad, and others. At the time of arrest, a vehicle, Honda Vezel was also seized from the petitioner's custody. A reference under Section 18(g) and 24(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999 was filed against the petitioner and other persons. During investigation, DG NAB Sindh passed an order on 01.02.2022 under Section 12 of the NAO 1999 for freezing of movable and immovable properties of accused persons which was confirmed by the trial court on 14.02.2023. The petitioner, on 31.01.2023, filed an application under Section 516- A of the CrPC, 1898 in the trial court for release of the vehicle on superdari subject to furnishing of solvent surety, which was dismissed on 20.05.2023. The petitioner assailed the order of the trial court before the Sindh High Court, which was also dismissed, thus, the appeal before the Supreme Court. The judgment, authored by Justice Mazhar, said that the application moved under Section 516-A CrPC must be decided expeditiously after providing a fair chance to contest the legality of the seizure and the order must be based on cogent reasons as to why the vehicle should be released or why it should not be released, rather than deferring the application for an indefinite period or disposing it of in a slipshod or cursory manner. It noted that according to the command and mandate of Article 23 of the Constitution, every citizen has a right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property in any part of Pakistan, subject to the Constitution and any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest. All at once, it is engrained and embedded under Article 24 of the Constitution that no person shall be deprived of his property save in accordance with the law with certain exceptions. The judgment said that while exercising discretionary powers for allowing or disallowing an application for interim custody, the Court must also consider the constitutional provisions to ensure that withholding custody without any rhyme or reason does not flout or violate or infringe upon fundamental rights as enshrined under the Constitution. It also said that the Court must aptly uphold a good sense of implementation of law, but on the other hand, it is obligated to shield and safeguard the rights of individuals in order to ensure justice without protracted detentions or delays of such interlocutory applications, as long as it does not compromise the legal proceedings. The Court clarified that the scheme of law permitting the interim custody of vehicle on superdari neither amounts to prejudice the trial, nor gives a clean chit to the accused, nor does it relieve or exempt the owner/recipient of custody from pending legal proceedings. However, the duration of the interim custody may continue subject to the bond and surety till the final fate of the case, till then, the person allowed interim custody is duty-bound under the law to attend, participate, and produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
