Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 2120 2021 SLD 2120 2021 PLJ 778
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 9861 of 2019, decided on 10.11.2020, Date of hearing: 10.11.2020.
FAISAL ZAMAN KHAN, JUSTICE.
Mr. Muhammad Atif Qureshi, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. Umair Shahid, Advocate for
Respondent. Mr. Jaam Muhammad Afzal Gasoora, Assistant Advocate General for
Respondent TEVTA.

HAFEEZ AHMAD AND 3 OTHErs

VS

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY COMMITTEE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 6 OTHERS

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199s

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199s were serving in TEVTA on daily wages--Application for regularization--Dismissed--Entitlement for regularization--Opportunity of hearing--Direction to--Impugned order would show that no independent reasons have been given by Respondent No. 2 while passing same--Mainstay of impugned order is that since Labour Laws are not applicable to employees of respondents-TEVTA, therefore, petitioners are not entitled to be considered for regularization--Petition allowed. 2019 SCMR 233 and 2018 SCMR 325 ref. JUDGMENT Through this petition order dated 24.09.2019 passed by Chairman TEVTA Punjab Lahore/Respondent No. 2 has been assailed, by virtue of which, an application seeking regularization in service filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 2. Facts giving rise to the present petition are that petitioners were employed on different posts by the respondent-TEVTA in the year 2007, 2013 and 2014.respectively as daily wagers. It was their case that due to efflux of time, keeping in view the notifications issued by the Government of Punjab and judgments passed by the Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan, they are entitled to regularization and in this regard, they moved applications before Respondent No. 2, which remained undecided whereupon they filed Writ Petition No. 9081 of 2018 in which a direction was issued to Respondent No.2 to decide the applications filed by the petitioners qua their regularization whereupon, through the impugned order regularization has been refused, therefore, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Respondent No. 2 erred in law in not considering the case of the petitioners keeping in view the notifications issued by the Government of Punjab and the judgments passed by the Honble Apex Court regarding regularization of daily wagers. 4. Replying to the above, learned counsel for the respondents as well as the learned Law Officer, while relying on judgments reported as Pakistan Airline Pilots Association and others v. Pakistan International Airline and another (2019 SCMR 278), Abdul Wahab and others v. HBL and others (2013 SCMR 1383), Pakistan International Airline Corporation…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492