' MEHTA KAILASH NATH KOHLI, J.---Facts of the case, in brief, are that present petition has been filed by petitioners claiming to be employees of Messrs Saindak Metals Limited (SML), a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, which is fully (100%) owned and controlled by Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources. Claim has been made in the petition that petitioners No,1 to 5 are still in service, while remaining petitioners have been relieved from service under 'Voluntarily Separation Scheme' (VSS). It was stated that revision in pay scales were announced by the Government during the year 2001, which have been declined to the petitioners. It was further stated that a Constitutional Petition No,24 of 2003 was filed, wherein; vide order dated 29th March, 2004, twelve employees were allowed revision of pay scale. Following prayer has been sought:-- "It is respectfully prayed that it may be declared:
1. That the action of Respondents, whereby they have declined the benefit of Notification No,F.1(5)Imp/2001 dated 4th September 2001 to the petitioners is unconstitutional, discriminatory and of the no legal effect.
2. That the Respondents may be directed to grant revision of pay scale pursuant to notification to the petitioners of this petition in the same terms as already allowed by this Honourable High Court of Balochistan to twelve (12) petitioners in C.P. No,24 of 2003.
3. Any other relief as may be deemed fit and appropriate may also be granted along with cost of petition."
' Notice of the petition was given to the respondents, who have filed their counter-affidavits and have raised objections that petitioners Nos.6 to 54 have already been relieved by virtue of VSS, and; have settled the matter finally, thus; they are not aggrieved persons and are not entitled to the same. Documents related to the same have also been placed on record, whereby; receipts have been issued by respondents, whereby; amount mentioned therein, were paid as full and final settlement of dues of VSS. The factum of dues under VSS, has not been controverted by respondents. It was also agitated that the matter has to be adjudicated by the Service Tribunal, in view of the amendment, made in the year 1997.
' We have heard Mr. H. Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel for petitioners, while Chaudhry Mumtaz Yousaf, learned Standing Counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed learned counsel for respondent No,3.
' It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioners that they are entitled to the revision in pay scales, which were made during the year 2001, and; it was also stated that this Court, vide order dated 29th March, 2004, allowed the said relief to two of the employees i,e, Syed Iqbal Ali and Rashid Ahmed, as such, the petitioners are also entitled to the same.
' On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents have contended that respondents Nos.6 to 54 have already received their dues against full and final settlement under VSS. It has also been contended by learned counsel that in view of amendment in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, whereby; all employees working in all organizations, corporations, established by the Federal Government, wherein; the Federal Government has the controlling share or interest, have been declared to be 'civil servants' for the purpose of said Act. It was further stated that the matter related to the terms and conditions of service, could have been adjudicated upon by the Service Tribunal and not before this Court in view of bar contained under Article-212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
' We have examined the respective pleadings, put forth by the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. In order to grant relief, it is essential to examine, as to whether this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. The matter relates to enhancement/application of revised pay scales made during the year 2001, and thus; question for determination is, as to whether the same is covered with the purview of 'terms and conditions of the service'. We are fortified with the view, expressed by their lordships in the case of Accountant General, Balochistan, Quetta v. Abdul Majeed Babar and others (1990 SCM R 790), wherein, the question of fixation of pay scale was involved and this Court had issued writ against the Accountant-General. The Accountant-General went in appeal before Hon'ble apex Court with the plea to set aside the judgment and hold that the matter relates to terms and conditions of service, and; falls within the domain of Federal Service Tribunal. Relevant Observations are reproduced herein-below:-- "10.. However, the dispute substantially is with regard to the period of service before superannuation when Federal Government was fully incharge of the terms and conditions of the respondent. Article 212 of the Constitution is pre-emptory in language and provides that "no other Court shall grant an injunction, make any order or entertain any proceedings in respect of any matter to which the jurisdiction of such administrative Court or Tribunal extends." The remedy to the Tribunal is available not only to those who are in service but also those who had been in service provided the dispute relates to their period of service."
' Section-2-A was added vide Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1997, same is reproduced as under:-- "2A. Service under certain corporations, etc, to be service of Pakistan.---Service under any authority, corporation, body or organization established by or under a Federal law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share or interest is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under such authority, corporation, body or organization shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of this Act."
' On perusal of above provisions of law that present respondent is company, which is controlled by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, having 100% control as organization, covered within the purview of above Sections, and thus; this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. We are fortified with the view, expressed in cases reported in PLD 1999 SC 990, 2000 SCM R 1232 and PLD 2003 SC 193.
' There is yet another question, which requires determination that the petitioners Nos.6 to 54 having received their dues, whether could be termed as aggrieved persons. It is an admitted feature of the case that under VSS, they had,accepted the dues, copies of receipts were filed on record, which show that they have received the amount against consideration of "full and Final Settlement of Dues", and they are not estoped in law to claim entitlement relating to enhancement made during course of year 2001.
' Suffice to observe that after having accepted the amount, the petitioners Nos.6 to 54 could not be termed as aggrieved persons and petition on their behalf is equally not competent. They are estopped under law to claim the enhancement, as mentioned herein above. We are also supported by the view, expressed by Labour Appellate Tribunal in the case of Muhammad Siddique v. Messrs Premier Tobacco Industries Ltd. Kotri (PLC 1981 (Labour) 670), whereby; the Chairman of the Tribunal was of the view that the workman after having received the amount, is no longer an aggrieved person. Relevant observations of the Tribunal are reproduced herein below:-- "3. .Having received his dues in full and final settlement of his claim the appellant ceased to be an aggrieved worker for the purposes of section 25-A, I.R.O., and accordingly, was not entitled to maintain a grievance petition against his dismissal as held by a Division Bench of the Karachi High Court in the case of Futtehally Chemicals v. Majeed Baig (1). A similar view was taken by this Tribunal in the case reported in 1974 PLC Note 146 at p.79 and in Appeal No,KAR-585 of 1980, decided on 3rd December, 1980."
' For the foregoing reasons, present petition being devoid of merits, is accordingly, dismissed in limine.