' RANA BHAGWANDAS, judgment shall dispose of above-mentioned appeals as the same arise out of common judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to the Tribunal) and involve identical questions of law and fact.
2. These appeals with the leave of the Court are directed against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 20-3-2003 passed in Service Appeals Nos.69(R)CS of 2002 to 80(R)CS of 2002 dismissing above said appeals of the appellants. Appellants are the regular employees of the National Tariff Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) a body corporate constituted and established by the Federal Government under the provisions of National Tariff Commission Act (No,VI) of 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) promulgated on 25-6-1990. Section 3(2) of the Act stipulates that the Commission shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power, subject to the provisions of this Act to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable, and shall by name specified in subsection(1) sue and be sued. Section 18 of the Act empowers the Commission with the prior approval of the Federal Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act, by notification in the official Gazette.
3. By virtue of its constitution and composition, the Commission being a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, appellants-employees of the Commission through the Ministry of Commerce represented from time to time for the extension of pension scheme and General Provident Fund in the Commission but their request was finally turned down by the Finance Division vide letter dated 20-9-2001 expressly stating that the proposal regarding extension of pensionary benefits to the employees of N.T.C. Has been examined in the light of prevailing Government policy and that the Finance Division regrets its inability to accede to the proposal.
Appellants, through their separate appeals, impugned the correctness of the decision before the Tribunal, which have been dismissed, hence the present set of appeals with the leave of the Court.
4. The ground urged at the leave grant stage appears to be that the Tribunal failed to grant equitable relief to the appellants and they were discriminated because in similar circumstances employees of Monopoly Control Authority, National Police Academy and Frontier Works organisation had been allowed the benefit of pension. It was also pointed out that the Tribunal vide judgment dated 2-4-1999 had held that the Commission was an attached department of the Ministry of Commerce and that it was not a corporate body, which findings were not challenged before the appellate forum and, thus, attained finality but in the judgment impugned Tribunal did not agree with the interpretation made by the earlier Bench.
5. At the hearing, Mr. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, learned ASC for the appellants vociferously contended that for all intents and purposes appellants fall within the category of civil employees serving under the administrative control of the Commission, which is a part and parcel of the Commerce Ministry and, thus, they are employees of the Federal Government. He vehemently urged that Ministry of Commerce had strongly recommended the extension of pension scheme and G.P. Fund benefits to them but the Finance Division wrongly denied the concession. Learned counsel referred to a good number of letters emanating from the Ministry of Commerce supporting the plea of the appellants but, as observed in the narrative of this judgment, Finance Division, being the relevant Division for the purpose, finally declined to concede to the proposal floated by the Ministry of Commerce. Learned counsel next relied upon the Office Memorandum No,F.1(5)Imp./2001 dated 4-9-2001 of the Finance Division, Regulation Wing on the subject "revision of basic pay scales and fringe benefits of civil employees (BPS 1-22) of the Federal Government (2001)". Mr. Bhatti pointedly referred to paragraph 15 of the office memorandum dealing with the pension and commutation and lastly referred to the Office Memorandum No,F.3(6)R.4/91 dated 19- 2-2002, inter alia, providing that all other fringe benefits mentioned in the office memorandum dated 4-9-2001 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the M.T.C. Employees.
6. On the other hand, Raja Muhammad Irshad, learned Deputy Attorney General assisted by Section Officer of the Finance Division contended that no doubt Ministry of Commerce had repeatedly taken up the issue with the Regulation Wing of the Finance Division for extension of pensionary benefits and G.P. Fund Scheme to the employees of the Commission but, after examining pros and cons of the proposal, Finance Division finally declined to accept the proposal vide letter dated 20- 9-2001.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examining the record, we find that draft service rules for employees framed by the Commission were submitted to the Federal Government for approval, which required concurrence of the Finance Division as well. It may be observed that in the Employees Service Rules, 1995, duly approved by the Federal Government and notified in the Gazette of Pakistan dated 12-9-1995, Rule 27 specifically deals with entitlement of the employees of the Commission to the benefit of pension, gratuity and General Provident Fund as are admissible to the corresponding employees of the Federal Government and that the rules and orders of the Federal Government on these matters shall mutatis mutandis apply to the employees of the Commission from that date they are adopted by the Commission with the prior approval of the Federal Government. It may be pertinent to point out that no doubt Commission had taken up the issue through its parent Ministry with the Regulation Wing of the Finance Division for approval of the Federal Government but as noted hereinabove Federal Government did not approve the extension of such benefits to the employees of the Commission. On its part, the Tribunal did not find it just, proper and lawful to equate the employees of the Commission with the employees of the Federal Government. Indeed there has been long chain of correspondence between the Commission and the Finance Division as well as between the Ministry of Commerce and the Finance Division but, on account of prevailing policy of Federal Government, Finance Division remained firm in regretting the proposal. Besides it such benefits have been granted to civil servants and not to the employees of the Commission. While civil servants may be eligible to enforce such rights being a secured right within the meaning of terms and conditions of his service a corporate employee cannot enforce such claim being an employee of a different category and such claim not guaranteed by the terms and conditions of his employment.
8. Lastly, Mr. Bhatti referred to the "Revision of basic pay scales and the award of fringe benefits" admissible to the employees of the Federal Government being applied to the employees of the Commission. Suffice it to observe that the scheme of revision of basic pay scales and fringe benefits of employees is confined to the civil employees of the Federal Government paid from the Civil estimates and from the Defence estimates respectively. This scheme would not per se extend to the appellants as consequent upon the introduction of revision of basic pay scales and fringe benefits, Finance Division, through its office memorandum dated 19-2-2004, had expressly altered, modified and revised the allowances and perks payable to the employees of the Commission. We are of the considered opinion that the fringe benefits incorporated in the revision of basic pay scales scheme introduced through office memorandum dated 4-9-2001 would not be automatically available to the employees of the Commission as fringe benefits are not considered to be part of salary and these are ordinarily in the shape of extra benefits incidental and ancillary to the nature of duties but mostly relatable to the salary. Award of pension and General Provident Fund being in the nature of vested right cannot be extended to the employees of the Commission by implication. In our considered opinion, employees of the Commission would be entitled to such salary, allowances and perks as are relatable to their terms and conditions of service as provided in the Commission Employees Service Rules. They would not be entitled to any other benefits, much less benefits like life time pension or G.P. Fund without any provision in their service rules and except with the approval of the Federal Government. Commission being creature of an statute, its employees would be bound by the terms and conditions as incorporated in the Act 1990. The expression "fringe benefits" has not been defined in the Act, therefore, we shall refer to its ordinary meanings given in the legal dictionaries. This expression has been given the following meanings in various dictionaries:-- 'Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition).--Side, non-wage benefits which accompany or are in addition to a person's employment such as paid insurance, recreational facilities, sick leave, profit- sharing plans, paid holidays and vacations, etc. Such benefits are in addition to regular salary or wages and are a matter of bargaining in union contracts.
Chambers English Dictionary (1989):-Something in addition to wages or salary that forms part of the regular remuneration from one's employment.
' The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume-5 (15th Edition): Any non-wage payment or benefit (e.g. Pension plans, profit-sharing programs, vacation pay, and company-paid life, health, and unemployment insurance programs) granted to employees by employers. They may be required by law granted unilaterally by employers, or obtained through collective bargaining. Employers' payments for fringe benefits are included in employee-compensation costs and therefore are not usually liable to corporate income tax. If the cost of fringe benefits were paid directly as wages, the worker would pay personal income tax on this amount and therefore have less to spend on such benefits as he might elect to furnish for himself. Thus, the employer can obtain more benefits for the employee with the same amount of money. He can also take advantage of lower group rates for insurance.
' Fringe benefits have generally constituted a higher proportion of total employee compensation in Europe than in the United States. In Europe they are most often the result of legislation, whereas in the United States collective bargaining has been more important in gaining such benefits for workers. The prevalence of fringe-benefit programs increased sharply during World War II because controls on this type of compensation were less stringent than controls on wages."
9. Reliance of the appellants on Muhammad Muzaffar Khan v. Muhammad Yusuf Khan (PLD 1959 Supreme Court (Pak.) 9), Divisional Superintendent, P.W.R. v. Bashir Ahmad (PLD 1973 SC 589), WAPDA v. Irtiqa Rasool Hashmi (1987 SCMR 359), Pakistan WAPDA v. Shamim Kamal (1998 PLC (C.S)
1306) and Secretary, Railways Board v. Muhammad Zubair Rana (PLD 2000 SC 61) is completely out of context and not relevant in the circumstances.
10. For the aforesaid facts, circumstances and reasons, there is no D substance in these appeals, which must fail and are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.