1. ' GHULAM RABBANI, J.---Both the above petitions involve common questions of law and facts and are disposed of by this single judgment.
2. ' In both the above Constitutional Petitions, petitioners have made with some variations the following identical prayers:-- C.P.No,D-636 of 1990 "It is, therefore, prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1,2, and 3 to implement Ann.A-3 in letter and spirit i.e, the Directive No,4 vide No, F.DS (MP)-PMDIR-119- 89 dated 21-5-1989 issued from Prime Minister's Secretariat, Rawalpindi and pay Bonus equal to two months' salary to all Labourers including the members of the Petitioner-Union who were on roll in 16-5-1989, working and employed at the establishment of (Pak-Saudi Fertilizers Limited Mirpur Mathelo Dist. Sukkur) Fauji Fertilizer Co. Limited, Mirpur Mathelo Dist. Ghotki (Sukkur Division) either directly or through or by the contractor, representatives of Fauji Fertilizers Co. Limited, Mirpur Mathelo Dist. Ghotki, in the interest of justice. Any other relief/reliefs as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case be also allowed. Cost of the petition be allowed in the interest of justice."
3. C P. No, D-1303 of 1990.
4. "It is, therefore, prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to implement Ann.A-22 in letter and spirit i.e, the Directive No,4 vide No, F.DS (MP)- PMDIR-119-89 dated 21-5-1989 issued from Prime Minister's Secretariat, Rawalpindi and pay Bonus equal to two months' salary to all Labourers including the applicants and the members of the applicant union, who were on roll on 16-5-1989 and were working and employed for the establishment of Paksaudi Fertilizers Limited, Mirpur Mathelo Dist. Sukkur, in the interest of justice.
5. ' Any other relief/reliefs as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case be also granted.
6. ' Cost of the petition be allowed in the interest of justice."
7. ' Petitioner in Constitutional Petition No,D-636 of 1990 and petitioner No,1 in Constitutional Petition No,D- 1303 of 1990 claim to be the registered Unions and CBA under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 in respect of Workers/workmen employed at/for the establishmentof respondent No,3. Fauji Fertilizer Company Limited/Pak-Saudi Fertilizers (Pvt.) Limited, Mirpur Methelo, Petitioners Nos.2 and 3 in Constitutional Petition No,D-1303 of 1990 are said to be employed as Gardener and Sweeper, respectively and are members of Petitioner Union in the said Constitutional petition.
8. According to petitioner-Union in Constitutional Petition No,D-636 of 1990 it represents 362 workmen/its members engaged through contractor to work at the establishment of respondent No,3 for last many years as its employees while petitioner-Union in other petition claim to represent 80 Malis and Sweepers employed by respondent No,3 through respondent No,4, a Contractor.
9. The common facts relevant for disposal of above two petitions are that on 16-5-1989 Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, in her speech at the occasion of inauguration of NFC's Fertilizer Expansion Project, declared that the payment of two months' wages as bonus over and above the settled/legal bonus be made to all the labourers of Pak-Saudi Fertilizer Company Ltd., which according to petitioners include their members. In pursuance of the above speech, Prime Minister's Secretariat Rawalpindi issued directives followed by reminder(s) to the Secretary Production and to the Chairman, National Fertilizer Corporation, Lahore, respondent No,2, for necessary action, Petitioners have stated that respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 paid such bonus to about 100 officers, 650 workers and about 41 workers of Contractor namely Indus Traders: however, despite their efforts, no such payment was made to the members of petitioner unions who were on the roll and were present on invitation at the time of above speech of the then Prime Minister.
10. ' Now, the grievance of petitioners is that non-implementation of above mentioned directives of Prime Minister is illegal, against natural justice and with mala fides on the part of respondents Nos.1,2 and 3 who are responsible for implementation of the above directives.
11. ' At the outset, Mr. Ashfaque H. Rizvi, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3 contended that the directives of the then Prime Minister, declaring the payment of bonus in question had no sanction of any statutory provision of law, therefore, no legal right was created in favour of the petitioners.
12. He submitted that since non-payment of bonus violated no provision of law and it was also not an infringement of any legal right to workers of petitioner unions, they could not, therefore, claim recovery of such bonus as a matter of any personal or individual right and that for the same reasons they could not maintain the above petitions. In support of his contentions, he referred to the case of Zaheeruddin Shaikh and others v. Prime Minister of Pakistan and others reported in 2002 CLC 147. Mr. Sajjad Ali Shah, learnedStanding Counsel concurred with Mr Rizvi in his abovesubmissions.
13. ' On the other hand, 'Mr. Shafique Qureshi, learned counsel for petitioners mainly contended that a question of discrimination of employees/workers of respondent No,3 was involved and, in that, he submitted that some of the workers/employees of respondent No,3 were paid the bonus in question as per directives of the then Prime Minister while the similar benefit was not extended to members of petitioner unions by refusing/withholding such payment.
14. ' We have given our due attention to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case-law cited by Mr. Rizvi, However, before we proceed to consider arguments of learned counsel. It may be stated, that by an order dated 21-8-2002, two other Constitutional Petitions bearing Nos.D-739 of .1993 and D-754 of 1996 were required to be tagged with these two petitions. Mr. Qureshi had stated before us that the said petitions required disposal before, disposal of these two petitions. However, on going through the material minutely, we are of the view that the common issue involved in these two petitions could be decided independently keeping in view the arguments of learned counsel for parties, more particularly, on the basis of case-law referred to by Mr. Rizvi. Hence we decide to consider the matters involved in these petitions, separately, recall our order dated 21-8-2002 and proceed further accordingly.
15. ' Coming back to the controversy involved in these petitions, itmay be Stated, that the main question which need to be answered is whether the directives of the then Prime Minister, as above, have the sanction of any statutory provision of law creating any legal right in favour 'of the 'petitioners to force the respondents to make compliance therewith. Here,- it may be stated that Mr. Shafique Qureshi was, particularly, required by our order dated 4-9-2003 to explain as to what vested rights were created in favour of petitioners on the basis of directions contained in above- referred memo. Dated 21-5-1989 issued from Prime Minister's Secretariat; This question was asked from Mr. Qureshi keeping in view the case of Zaheeruddin Shaikh and others (supra). Mr. Shafique Qureshi was, however, not able to furnish any satisfactory reply to meet the above question. Iwas not, in a position to refer to' any statutory provision that any legal right was created in favour of petitioners or that the respondents were under legal obligations to make compliance with the above-referred directives of the then Prime Minister.
16. ' We have gone through the judgment in case of Zaheeruddin and others (Supra), which was also referred to by Mr. Rizvi. In the said case the petitioners who were working as officers in various departments ofM/s. United Bank Ltd. Were retrenched from service in pursuance of scheme framed in view of decision of Federal Government to reduce the strength of officers in various banks and in Government Controlled Organizations. Their grievance was that they were entitled to rehabilitation/re-employment in various Government Departments in accordance with promise made by the then Prime Minister but, according to them, great injustice was done by not implementing the order/promise of the then Prime Minister who was the Chief Executive of the country resulting in violation of fundamental rights of petitioners contained in Articles 1-A, 4, 9, 14, 25, 37 and 38 of the Constitution of Pakistan. They therefore, filed Constitutional petitions seeking, inter alia, directions to the respondents including the Prime Minister himself to fulfil the promise and provide employment to the petitioners. Their request was turned down and petitions were dismissed with following observation: "Any party invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court has to establish the existence of a clear legal right and further that such legal right must be so clear so as not to admit of a reasonable doubt or a controversy. Such legal right must be a personal and individual right and that it must be a statutory right or a right recognized by law. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan can be invoked only by an aggrieved person and a person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone, who has legal duty to perform relating to the right. It is also to be noted that for invocation of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, the aggrieved party has to establish not only a legal right but a right which is justiciable in a Court of law, in the absence of which no order can be issued under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. It is incumbent upon the party invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution to satisfy that some illegal wrong had been inflicted or was about to be inflicted on the petitioner. In the present cases, the vested right which the petitioners are claiming is the promise, offer or announcement publicly made by the then Prime Minister of the country for absorbing the employees of the Nationalised Banks who were involuntarily retired, to which category the petitioners claimed to be belonging to.
17. Such promise, offer or announcement, in our opinion, would not create a vested right or a legal right in favour of Government departments, banks of financial institutions. Such public statements would not confer a legal or a vested right. Which could be enforced by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. Such public statements would not confer a legal or a vested right, which could be enforced by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
18. Such promise, offer or announcement could at best be treated as a desire or intention on the part of the then Prime Minister to prove relief to the involuntarily retired employees of the Nationalised Banks. Such intention or desire did not have the backing or support of any statute, law or the rules and regulations frame under any statute. Mere words of the then Prime Minister without having the support or backing of any law or statutory provision would not amount to conferring any legal or vested right in the petitioners, which could be enforced by a Court of law."
19. In our view, the case of petitioners does not appear to be different to the petitioners in the above- cited case. There is nothing before us to hold that the directives of Prime Minister has the sanction of any statutory provision of law or a legal right was created in favour of petitioners in pursuance of such directives. We, therefore, find no substance in these petitions which are disposed of accordingly,subject to this observation that the concerned respondents may like to consider at their end the case of the petitioners for payment of bonus at par with those labourers who were given the benefit in pursuance of above-mentioned directives of the then Prime Minister.