' SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.---This judgment will dispose of Writ Petition Nos.22088 of 2000, 22445 of 2000, 14895 of 2000 and 1251 of 2001 as the questions of law and fact involved in these petitions are the same.
2. The petitioners in all these cases are the employees of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (hereinafter called the P.I.A.C). Like many others they were recruited by the P.I.A.C.
Through a Contractor on daily wages basis and were not treated as the employees of the P.I.A.C.
Instead, they were treated as the employees of the Contractor. All the petitioners in these four cases continue in the same capacity.
3. Twenty five employees of the P.I.A.C. Recruited in the like manner, approached this Court in Writ Petition No,879 of 1999 which was finally disposed of vide judgment dated 12th July, 2000 Masood Ahmad and 24 others v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and 2 others (2001 PLC (C.S.) 41) with the following direction:-- "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 stand regularized are entitled.
The respondent-Corporation shall do so by or before 30th October, 2000."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that w,e,f, 30-4-2003 the contract system of employment in the P.I.A. Was done away with and, therefore, in accordance with the rule laid down in the judgment in the case of Masood Ahmad and 24 others supra they are entitled to be regularized. He vehemently pressed the findings of this Court in the above said case. He contended that this Court had noted that the work on which the petitioners in the said case were employed is a work of permanent nature and, therefore, in accordance with the definition of the "permanent workmen" and the judgment in the case of Farid Ahmad v. Pakistan Burmah Shell Limited (1987 SCMR 1463) noted by this Court in the above said precedent case, the petitioners in all these cases, having rendered service for a number of years, are permanent workmen. He also pointed out that the judgment in the above said case was assailed in I.C.A. No,601 of 2000 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 6-12-2000. Another grievance in this petition is that the services of the employees identically placed have been regularized as contract employees who are getting better pay and emoluments than the petitioners in these cases. Their case is that they are entitled to the same emoluments which are being paid to the regularized employees.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has, however, opposed these petitions. He submits that in compliance with the judgment in the case of Masood Ahmad and 24 others supra applications were invited from the daily wagers employed through the Contractor and services of a number of employees were regularized as the employees of the P.I.A.C. On contract basis. According to him, the petitioners did not make any application in response to the notice and, therefore, their case for regularization was not considered.
6. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered. The only ground not to consider the petitioners for regularization being pressed before this Court is that these petitioners did not make the applications. The assumption in this approach, which is fallacious, is that the judgment of this Court required making of an application for being considered for regularization. The entire record of their employment being with the P.I.A. And, there being no specific direction in the judgment in the case of Masood Ahmad etc. Supra to the effect that the daily wagers, employed through Contractor, will have to make applications, the petitioners were also entitled to be considered for regulariz on on the basis of their service record. At best, the competent authority could summon them for interview to assess their suitability for regularization.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has pressed for the same direction which was rendered by this Court in the case of Masood Ahmad supra.
7. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. The respondent-Corporation is directed to consider the petitioners for regularization on the basis of the same criteria and principles applied in the case of similarly placed daily wagers who were initially employed through a Contractor. It is however observed that if the competent authority summons the petitioners for interview, they shall appear accordingly. The exercise required to be done under this order shall be completed within three months. No order as to costs.