| Case ID |
0bd57f9d-3cf0-413b-a168-88d8bc5e7d68 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Petitions Nos. 262-K to 265-K of 2004 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 14, 2004 |
| Hearing Date |
Sep 14, 2004 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan converted the petitions into appeals and allowed them. The impugned judgment dated 30-1-2004 by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, was set aside. The appeals were decided in favor of the appellants, directing Respondents Nos. 1-5 to consider the nomination of appellants for training on Boeing-777 in the next training course in the United States of America (USA). The Court emphasized that future training selections must be conducted fairly, transparently, and in accordance with the Training Policy, ensuring that selections are based on merit, fitness, and seniority. Arbitrary and secretive selection processes were condemned, and it was directed that such practices should be avoided to prevent professional and financial losses to the prime workforce. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, reinstating the appellants' nominations for Boeing-777 training. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Civil Petitions Nos. 262-K to 265-K of 2004, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on September 14, 2004, the Court addressed significant issues related to employment discrimination and arbitrary decision-making within Pakistan International Airline Corporation (P.I.A.C.). The appellants, led by Abid Hassan, challenged the decision by P.I.A.C. to redirect their training from the technologically advanced Boeing-777 aircraft in the USA to the Airbus-310 Technical Course, citing violations of the Training Policy and misuse of discretionary powers. The case hinged on the interpretation of the Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) and Administrative Order No. 17/2001, with specific sections 2-A and 4 under scrutiny for potential discrimination based on merit and seniority.
The Supreme Court, after thorough examination, ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the prior judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. It mandated P.I.A.C. to reconsider the appellants' nominations for the Boeing-777 training, emphasizing the necessity for transparent, merit-based selection processes in alignment with established policies. The Court underscored the detrimental effects of arbitrary and arbitrary decision-making, which not only undermine employee morale but also tarnish the organization's reputation and operational efficiency.
Key legal precedents were cited, including Amanullah Khan v. Federal Government of Pakistan and Government of N.W.F.P. v. Mejee Flour, which reinforce the principles against arbitrary discretion and advocate for structured, rule-based governance. The judges, including Chief Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and Justices Javed Iqbal and Abdul Hameed Dogar, highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and the elimination of discriminatory practices in organizational policies.
The decision serves as a crucial reference for cases involving employment disputes, particularly in the aviation sector, where technical training and seniority play pivotal roles in career advancement. By mandating fair and transparent selection criteria, the Supreme Court's ruling promotes a meritocratic environment, ensuring that qualified and senior personnel receive appropriate opportunities for professional development.
This case also sheds light on the broader implications of discretion in administrative decisions, advocating for checks and balances to prevent the misuse of authority. The judgment calls for enhanced accountability within P.I.A.C. and similar organizations, ensuring that discretionary powers are exercised judiciously and in accordance with legal and ethical standards. The emphasis on structured discretion, as outlined by legal scholars like A.K. Brohi and D.J. Galligan, reinforces the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of equality before the law and combating arbitrary governance.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision in Civil Petitions Nos. 262-K to 265-K of 2004 not only rectifies the immediate grievance of the appellants but also reinforces the foundational legal tenets governing administrative discretion and employment fairness. The ruling is anticipated to influence future cases and organizational policies, fostering an environment where merit and transparency are paramount in professional selections and training allocations. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Supreme Court of Pakistan,
High Court of Sindh,
Federal Service Tribunal,
Pakistan International Airline Corporation (P.I.A.C.),
National Assembly of Pakistan,
Attorney General
|
| Judges |
Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C.J.,
Javed Iqbal,
Abdul Hameed Dogar
|
| Lawyers |
Raja Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court,
Ali Muhammad Baloch, Advocate Supreme Court,
Sajid Zahid, Advocate Supreme Court,
Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record,
Ms. Nahida Mahboob Elahi, Standing Counsel,
Ch. Naseer Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court
|
| Petitioners |
Abid Hassan and others
|
| Respondents |
P.I.A.C. and others
|
| Citations |
2005 SLD 1114,
2005 SCMR 25
|
| Other Citations |
Amanullah Khan and others v. Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others PLD 1990 SC 1092,
Government of N.W.F.P. v. Mejee Flour and General Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. 1997 SCMR 1804 rel,
Chairman R.T.A. v. Pakistan Mutual Insurance Company PLD 1991 SC 14,
Pacific Multinational (Pvt.) Ltd. v. I.-G. of Police PLD 1992 Kar. 283,
Presson Manufacturing Ltd. v. Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources 1995 MLD 15,
Ramana v. I.A. Authority of India AIR 1979 SC 1628,
Dwarka Nath Prasad Atal v. Ram Rati Devi AIR 1980 SC1992,
Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana AIR 1985 SC 1147,
Nizamuddin v. Civil Aviation Authority 1999 SCMR 467 rel,
1992 CLC 219 (DB),
AIR 1965 All 275,
AIR 1952 SC 75
|
| Laws Involved |
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973),
Administrative Order No. 17/2001 (Cockpit Crew Service Rules),
Administrative Order No.38/2003
|
| Sections |
2-A,
4
|