1996 PLP 31 (PLC)
ZAFAR-UL-HASSAN and 7 others Versus PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION through Chairman, PTC and another
| Citation | 1996 PLP 31 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | Gohar Yaqoob Yousaf Zai, Member |
| Parties | ZAFAR-UL-HASSAN and 7 others Versus PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION through Chairman, PTC and another |
| Primary Law | (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 31 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 31 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: Gohar Yaqoob Yousaf Zai, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 31 (PLC) (ZAFAR-UL-HASSAN and 7 others Versus PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION through Chairman, PTC and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz Muhammad Younus, Representative for Petitioners.
- Raja Abdur Rashid for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 34
Petition under S. 34, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969-- Maintainability
Petitioners who filed petition under S.34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against Establishment, were not its Collective Bargaining Agent (C.BA.) but were members or office-bearers of Regional Bodies of Union, which was C.BA. in the Establishment
Petition against Establishment was not filed through union which enjoyed status of C.BA. nor through its General Secretary who was authorised under Constitution of that union to sue or to be sued, but petitioners had filed that joint petition in their individual capacity and not as representative of C.BA
Petition, thus was not maintainable, because remedy available under S. 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 could be invoked by C.B.A. only and such rights which were exclusively enjoyed by C.B.A. or the employer could not be extended to members of union which was a C.BA. nor could same be automatically extended to office-bearers of the Regional Bodies of the C.B.A. Karachi Pipe Mills Employees Union v. Karachi Pipe Mills Limited, Karachi 1992 SCMR 36 and Habib Bank Limited Employees Federation v. HBL etc. 1995 PLC 414 ref.
Ss. 2(xxviii) & 34
Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act (XVIII of 1991), S. 9
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212
Service Tribunals Act, (LXX of 1973), S. 3(2)
Petition under S. 34, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969
Civil servants
Constitutional Bar
Petition filed by petitioners against Establishment was objected to on ground that petitioners being employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (P.T.C.) were Government servants and their terms and conditions of service were also protected as civil servants under provisions of S. 9 of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991 and that in view of bar contained under Art. 212 of Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, petitioners could only invoke jurisdiction of Federal Service Tribunal
Objection to petition was well-founded in view of fact that though Establishment of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (P.T.C.) was a Corporation, but rights and liabilities of petitioners, being in service at the time of conversion of establishment of telephone and telegraph (T & T) into a Corporation were protected by S.9 of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation, Act, 1991-- Petitioners, thus were civil servants within meaning of Civil Servants Act, 1973 read with Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and had got no - right to invoke jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission as a workman-- Petition filed by petitioners, was not maintainable being without jurisdiction. Faqir Muhammad etc. v. The Director of National Saving Centre etc. 1992 PLC 163 and PLD 1992 SC 127 ref.
Judgment & Decree
By promotion By initial appointment 1 2 3 4 1. Data Control Asstt. (PBS‑14) 60% 40% 2. Key Punch Operator (BPS‑10)
100% Provided that if no suitable person is available for promotion the post reserved for promotion shall be filed by initial appointment and failing that by transfer Promotion to the posts in Column 1 below shall be made on seniority- cum‑fitness basis from amongst the persons who hold the posts specified in Column 2 on a regular basis and possess the qualifications and experience prescribed in Column
3. Name and Basic Pay Scale of the Post Person eligible Conditions of eligibility 1 2 3 Data Control Assistant(BPS‑14) KPO (BPS‑10) 5 years service as Key Punch Operator BPS‑10
7. After going through the conditions of eligibility for such promotion it is clear that the petitioner should have a service as Key Punch Operator (BPS‑10) for a period of 5 years whereas admittedly the petitioners do not have completed the service of five years as Key Punch Operator in BPS‑
10. Therefore, very simply the petition itself is premature as yet the petitioners have got no right of promotion being not eligible to be considered for such promotion in BPS‑14 as Data Control Assistant against the quota of 60% by promotion. On this score also I hold the petition premature and not maintainable.
8. As a result of the above discussion the petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. H.B.T./245/NIRC Petition dismissed.