| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2533 2026 SLD 2533 |
Islamabad High Court
WRIT PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2021
Presented By: (INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) JUDGE
Petitioner by: M/s Shahid Anwar Bajwa and Mujtaba Ahmed Bajwa, Advocates.
Respondents No. 1 to 17 & 20 by: M/s Badar Iqbal Chaudhary and Syed Ahmad Hassan Shah, Advocates.
Respondent No. 22 by: Mr. Fahad Khan Tareen, AAG. Assisted by: Muhammad Yahya Khan Niazi, Judicial Law Clerk. Date of Hearing: 21.10.2025
WRIT PETITION NO. 1928 OF 2021
Presented By: (INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) JUDGE
Petitioner by: M/s Shahid Anwar Bajwa and Mujtaba Ahmed Bajwa, Advocates.
Respondents No. 1 to 17 & 20 by: M/s Badar Iqbal Chaudhary and Syed Ahmad Hassan Shah, Advocates.
Respondent No. 22 by: Mr. Fahad Khan Tareen, AAG. Assisted by: Muhammad Yahya Khan Niazi, Judicial Law Clerk. Date of Hearing: 21.10.2025
PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LTD.
VERSUS
QASIM QADIR AND OTHERS
Law: Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952
Section: 3, 6, 7
Law: Pakistan International Airlines Corporation - PIA (Conversion) Act, 2016
Section: 3(6)(iii)
Tagline Exclusive Regulatory Authority of the NIRC Chairman over Wages under Essential Services Law; Distinction between Regulatory Affirmation and Judicial Adjudication. Summary: Pakistan International Airlines (PIACL) filed a writ petition challenging an order by the Chairman, NIRC, which set aside a PIACL Circular dated 10.06.2020. This circular had reduced employee salaries during the COVID-19 pandemic after PIACL was declared an "essential service." PIACL contended that the Chairman’s act of "setting aside" the circular amounted to "adjudication"—a judicial function—rather than "regulation," which is his only mandate under the ESA 1952. The High Court analyzed the distinction between regulatory and adjudicatory powers. It held that under Rule 3 of the 1962 Rules, the Chairman is indeed the exclusive authority to regulate wages. Consequently, PIACL’s unilateral salary reduction was void ab initio as it encroached upon the Chairman's statutory domain. However, the Court agreed with PIACL that the formal act of "setting aside" an instrument is an adjudicatory function reserved for the judiciary. While the Chairman has "incidental and ancillary powers" to determine if an employer’s conduct conforms to the law, he cannot issue formal judicial declarations. Ultimately, the High Court modified the NIRC's order by expunging the words "set aside," while upholding the substance of the decision: that PIACL’s unilateral reduction of salaries was without lawful authority. ORDER; INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J:- Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 07.05.2021 (“Impugned Order”), passed by the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission (“Chairman”), whereby the Chairman affirmed his jurisdiction as the competent authority to regulate wages during the subsistence of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 (“ESA 1952”) and set aside the Circular dated 10.06.2020 on the subject “PIA EMPLOYEES PAYS DURING COVID-19 PANDAMIC” (“Circular”). Additionally the…