1986 PLP 771 (PLC)

Option once exercised by employee out of two alternatives, held, could not be changed subsequently. Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Petitioners. Bashir Ahmad for Respondent No.

1. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and

3. Date of hearing: 21st April, 1986. MUHAMMAD ZAFARULLAH, J.‑‑The WAPDA and Hydro Labour Central Labour Union came to an agreement, on 30‑8‑1978 according to the terms of which the employees of WAPDA were given an option to claim either higher percentage of house‑rent allowance or to opt for concession of requisitioning of a house. This option was to be exercised by 30‑9‑1978. It was decided that ail those who did not give any option by this date will be deemed to have opted for the concession of higher percentage of house‑rent allowance. Muhammad Yasin respondent No. 1, who was working as Lineman in the Gulberg Sub‑Division of WAPDA Lahore actually opted for the higher house‑rent allowance. It appears that after obtaining this concession he changed his mind subsequently and applied for requisitioning of the house. This request was turned down as the petitioner had already opted for house‑rent allowance in accordance with the letter of 30‑8‑1978. The petitioner took the matter to the Labour Court. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, vide its order, dated 13‑1‑1980 accepted the petition of Muhammad Yasin. The WAPDA challenged the orders in appeal but their appeal was dismissed on 16‑3‑1981. The WAPDA has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of WAPDA has raised three pleas:‑‑ (i) Muhammad Yasin respondent was a civil servant under section 17(1)(b) of the WAPDA Act and, therefore, could not agitate the matter before the Labour Court. (ii) The grievance petition was barred by limitation. (iii) The option exercised once could not be changed.

3. All employees of WAPDA are civil servants. This question has now been well‑settled and is not open to any controversy. The findings of the Labour Court that the respondent No. 1 was not a civil servant cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, however, states that the respondent was a deputationist from the Government of Punjab and thus the provisions of the WAPDA Act did not apply to him. The question whether the respondent was a deputationist was never raised before the Labour Court. It cannot, therefore, be raised at this stage.

4. As regards the question of limitation the limitation will obviously run from 30th September, 1978 which was the last date of option offered to the employees of WAPDA in accordance with their letter, dated 30‑8‑1978. The Labour Court has wrongly calculated the limitation from 24‑3‑1979 when the miscellaneous application made by Muhammad Yasin was rejected by WAPDA. This brings us to the related question of exercise of option. The letter of 30th August, 1978 clearly provides for option to be exercised by 30th September, 1978 and also that those who did not exercise their option shall be deemed to have opted for the higher house‑rent allowance. The respondent No. 1 having actually exercised his option in favour of house‑rent allowance he could not change his option subsequently.

5. In view of the above considerations the Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal have not acted in accordance with law in applying the terms of the agreement of 30th August, 1978 to the facts of the case. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the orders of the Labour Court, dated 13‑1‑1980 and of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, dated 16‑3‑1981 are declared to be of no legal effect consequently the grievance petition of Muhammad Yasin respondent No. 1 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. A. A. Petition accepted.