๐‹๐ž๐ ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฅ๐š๐ญ๐ž ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐„๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฒ๐ž๐ž๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ก๐จ ๐…๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐ž๐ซ ๐Œ๐š๐ฌ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ ๐š๐ง๐ ๐’๐ž๐ซ๐ฏ๐š๐ง๐ญ ๐‘๐ž๐ฅ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ: ๐’๐‚

Share

๐‹๐ž๐ ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฅ๐š๐ญ๐ž ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐„๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฒ๐ž๐ž๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ก๐จ ๐…๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐ž๐ซ ๐Œ๐š๐ฌ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ ๐š๐ง๐ ๐’๐ž๐ซ๐ฏ๐š๐ง๐ญ ๐‘๐ž๐ฅ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ: ๐’๐‚

A three member-bench of the Supreme Court in a judgment has recently directed the federal as well as the provincial legislatures to legislate for those employees who fall under the ‘master and servant relationship’. The Court has rightly highlighted that this is a grey area of law where law does not exist for this kind of employees and they are compelled to reach out to a civil court for redressal of their grievance.

๐๐š๐œ๐ค๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ˆ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ž

There are three types of employees who have separate service laws : Civil Servants who are dealt with under Civil Servant Act 1973 and Rules, Workmen who enjoys protection of labour lawsย  and employees whose service is regulated under statutory rules. The first two types of employees have separate tribunals as well forย  the redressal of their grievance. The third category of employees have right to approach a High Court for an issue related to their service. What is common among them is that all of them enjoy protection of law as there are separate laws for them.

๐Œ๐š๐ฌ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ ๐š๐ง๐ ๐’๐ž๐ซ๐ฏ๐š๐ง๐ญ ๐‘๐ž๐ฅ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ

However, there is a fourth category ofย  employees whose service is not regulated under any specific law. They are dealt with under ‘Master and Servant’ relationship, which is just a title not a law. The title itself is self explanatory which implies that the employee will be treated as servant and the employer as master. This is obvious that relationship between master and servant is not based on equality. Rather, the master has always upper hand and the servant is supposed to work at his pleasure.

๐Ž๐ฉ๐ข๐ง๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ

The Court has highlighted this issue in the judgment and has held that this concept offends Articles 3, 11 and 38 of the Constitution, which prohibits all form of exploitation, slavery and stress on equal treatment between employee and employer respectively.

๐๐š๐œ๐ค๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐‚๐š๐ฌ๐ž

This case came before the Supreme Court in the background of numerous petitions against different judgmets of the Lahore High Court related to service issues of the petitioners. The main issue revolved around statutory and non statutory rules of service. The Court reached the conclusion that the rules related to the petitioners’ service wereย  non statutory. Hence, they could not approach the High Court for redressal of their service issues. Rather, the relationship between the employer and them was that of ‘master and servant’. Thus, the appropriate remedy could be approaching to a civil court, not the High Court. In this background, the Court took cognisance of this matter and attempted to discuss the grey area of master and servant rule.

๐‚๐จ๐ง๐œ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง

The Court at the end has directed the office to transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned quarters for proper legislation on the issue in hand. The Court has repeatedly emphasised on legislation on this issue and has wished for setting up separate tribunals as well for this type of employees.

The author judge of the judgment is Honorable Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.

We hope the long awaited issue of these employees will be resolved very soon by virtue of this judgment.

Click to Downloadย 

c.a._795_l_2012

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top