SC seeks reply from govt in workers’ fund case
Justice Saeed expressed annoyance on the performance of government departments
PHOTO: AFP/FILE
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a written reply from the federal government on a plea challenging the appointment of employees on deputation in the Workers Welfare Fund (WWF).
A two-member bench headed by Justice Shiekh Azmat Saeed heard the case moved by Chuadhry Abdur Rehman, a representative of industrial workers.
During the proceedings, Justice Saeed expressed annoyance on the performance of government departments. He said the court would be able to decide its course of action after examining the government's reply.
Advocate Wasi Zafar informed the court that there was a ‘clerical mistake’ in an order and the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the list of employees on deputation. Justice Saeed remarked that decisions of the court were not something to be mocked. He said it appeared that a couple of clerks were running the government.
The court sought the reply from the government within one week and adjourned further hearing of the case for a week.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a written reply from the federal government on a plea challenging the appointment of employees on deputation in the Workers Welfare Fund (WWF).
A two-member bench headed by Justice Shiekh Azmat Saeed heard the case moved by Chuadhry Abdur Rehman, a representative of industrial workers.
During the proceedings, Justice Saeed expressed annoyance on the performance of government departments. He said the court would be able to decide its course of action after examining the government's reply.
Advocate Wasi Zafar informed the court that there was a ‘clerical mistake’ in an order and the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the list of employees on deputation. Justice Saeed remarked that decisions of the court were not something to be mocked. He said it appeared that a couple of clerks were running the government.
The court sought the reply from the government within one week and adjourned further hearing of the case for a week.