2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

TARIQ JAVAID, J.

This order shall dispose of Writ Petition No.9257 of 2009; Writ Petition No.6143 of 2009; Writ Petition No.5728 of 2006; Writ Petition No.5325 of 2006; Writ Petition No.4811 of 2006; Writ Petition No.5798 of 2006 and Writ Petition No.5425 of '2008 as common question of law and facts are involved.

2. Precisely, the petitioners were working as daily wagers by the respondent-department and they were transferred to Telecom Foundation in different batches respectively but under the law they remained as employees of the PTCL for whose benefit they have been working. Respondent Company approved to adjust daily wagers. It is contended that they became permanent after rendering service of 180 days; that they have also sought for the salary and allowances according to the scale of pay have been paid to the every regular employee of the PTCL and rendered services alike along with other service benefits. It was maintained that in similar circumstances, Writ Petition No.1444 of 2001 was allowed which was assailed vide ICA No.64 of 2002 and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, a civil petition was also filed before the honourable Supreme Court and the order passed by this court was upheld, therefore, the workers who had worked for more than two years were allowed to be permanent employees of the respondent. It is maintained that the case of the petitioners is at par; therefore, they are also entitled to the same relief.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the grant of relief to the petitioners. However, it has been candidly admitted that the case of the petitioners is at par with those employees who were granted relief earlier.

4. It is also admitted position that the honourable Supreme Court upheld the findings recorded by the learned Judge in Chamber in Writ Petition No.1444 of 2001. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below for facility of reference-- "I have gone through the file of this writ petition. There is no denial that the petitioners are doing work of permanent nature for the last several years and certainly exceeding 9 months. It is true that respondent No.4 claims to be supplier/contractor who had supplied the petitioners for work to respondent No.2 but I do agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the workmen may be employed directly or through a contractor and notwithstanding the intervention of a supplier (in the present case in the form of respondent' No.4). The workman remains employees of establishment. Apart from the said case of PIA being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this court has in several cases of PTCL held that such like employees are for all purposes regular employees and to be dealt with as such. So far as the said objection to the jurisdiction of the court is concerned, in the first instance the question involved in this case is not at all covered by section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act or for that matter by section 6 thereof. In the second instance all the petitioners were employed after incorporation of respondent No.2 and as held in the case of G.M. Optical Fibre System Telecomm Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Rasheed Khan, Member NIRC 2000 PLC (C.S.) 180 are not civil servants. For all that has been discussed above, the writ petition is allowed and petitioners are declared to be employees of respondent No.2 in terms prayed for. Respondent No.2 shall however, work out the salary and allowances payable to the petitioners in accordance with law preferably within 6 weeks of this order."

5. In view of what has been discussed above, these petitions are allowed and petitioners are entitled to the relief as prayed for. H.B.T./I-32/L Petition allowed.