2006 PLP 374 (PLC)

SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.

The twenty petitioners herein were employed by Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), Corporation through a contractor but were treated as daily wages employees. Through this writ petition, they seek the same relief which was granted to the daily wages employees of the PIA in the case of Masood and 24 others v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and 2 others (2001 PLC (CS) 41). This judgment was upheld in I.C.A. No.601 of 2000, decided on 6-12-2000. The case of Masood Ahmed and 24 others (supra) was disposed of with the following direction: "Admittedly, the respondent-Corporation has not considered the case of the petitioners. In this view of the matter and for what has been discussed above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Corporation to consider the question of petitioners' regularization and granting them same salary/benefits to which their other colleagues (who stand regularized) are entitled. The respondent-Corporation shall do so by or before 30th October, 2000." The same relief was granted by this Court in W.Ps. Nos.14895-2000, 22088-2000, 22445-2000 and 1251-2001, decided by me.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pressed the aforesaid judgments to-claim the same relief. It is maintained that the petitioners, by their continuous service for a number of years, had attained the status of permanent workmen and even on that score they were entitled to be inducted as regular employees of the P.I.A. He contends that the daily wagers employed through a contractor have already been declared as the employees of the P.I.A.

3. This petition is being resisted by the respondents. In the report and parawise comments submitted on behalf of respondent No.1, a number of objections to the maintainability of this petition have been raised. It is stated that in December, 2001, the respondents-Corporation framed a policy to induct the daily wagers hired through a contractor on selection of consolidated salary and for the purpose applications were invited through a public notice. The petitioners who applied, were duly considered. According to said policy, the daily wagers with more than one year service were eligible for being considered for employment in P.I.A. on contract basis. A perusal of the record shows that Petitioners Nos.1, 2, 4-7 to 10,13,14,16 to 19 were duly considered and were either found to be ineligible or were not found suitable by the Selection Board. Petitioners Nos.15, and 20 did not appear for interview. As far as Respondents Nos.3, 5, 6, 11 and 12 are concerned, it was reported that manpower contractor had withdrawn their services due to unauthorized absence from different dates. It may also be noted that on the date of the notice inviting application (24-7-2002), none of the petitioners was in the employment of PIA in any capacity and the services of the petitioners had already been dispensed with much earlier before approaching this Court in this constitutional petition. A direction for being considered for regularization could only be claimed by an employee who was already in the employment and in case the grievance was against termination of his service, in remedy lay elsewhere. The respondent-Corporation duly considered the petitioners who had applied for being inducted in the service of the PIA in response to the public notice. The petitioners could not claim regularization without undergoing the process of selection. This was the view taken by me while disposing of Writ Petition Nos.7455-2003. In Writ Petition Nos.14895-2000, 22088-2000, 22445 and 1251-2001, the petitioners were in the service of the PIA. Therefore, the said cases are distinguishable.

4. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. F.B./M-64/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition dismissed.