' TARIQ SHAMIM, J . - -- The brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioners and some other employees of Lyallpur Chemical and Fertilizer Corporation, Faisalabad, were relieved from service under the Voluntary Separation Scheme 1+2. The petitioners after receiving the benefits under the said Scheme were relieved from service in the year 1997. Later on, VSS/Golden Hand Shake Scheme 1+4 was introduced in order to achieve better results for separation/relieving of the workers from service which offered better benefits. The petitioners and others being aggrieved made representations to the competent authority/respondent No,2 for payment of differential benefits between the two Schemes. However, the matter was put off by respondents Nos.2 and 3 and consequently, this petition has been filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that great injustice had been done by the respondents by extending discriminatory treatment to the petitioners as the other workers of the same establishment as well as other units were extended benefits VSS/Golden Hand Shake Scheme 1+4 which was violative of fundamental rights provided under Article 4 of the Constitution.
Further maintained that the workers of Pak Saudi Fertilizers Company had been given/paid the arrears of Golden Hand Shake Scheme, so the petitioners were also entitled to the same treatment.
Also maintained that respondents Nos.2 and 3 were willing to pay arrears/differential amount to the petitioners, however, respondent No,1, Privatization Commission was not willing in the said regard.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 contended that the writ petition was barred by laches as the petitioners had failed to agitate the matter before this Court for the last about 9-1/2 years. Also stated that the petitioners opted for Voluntary Separation Scheme 1+2 and had received the benefits, without raising any objection and, therefore, the petitioners were estopped by their own conduct to agitate the matter before the Court. The learned counsel also maintained that the petitioners were never given any understanding by the respondents that in oase new Scheme was introduced, the workers would be given benefit of the said scheme and as per office memorandum dated 22-2-1997 it was specifically stated that the workers were entitled to VSS @ 1+2 only and those workers who declined to avail the benefits of the said Scheme might be considered for retrenchment under the existing Labour Laws. The petitioners and others in order to avoid retrenchment accepted the Scheme and had received payment voluntarily without raising any protest. This decision was conveyed through letter dated 28-2-1997. It was further stated that the Golden Hand Shake Scheme 1+4 was not applicable to the petitioners and other workers who had accepted VSS 1+2 and had received payment in accordance therewith. It has also been stated by the learned counsel that recourse to Article 199 of the Constitution was misconceived in view of the provisions of sections 28/29 of Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000 and that the matter essentially involved resolution of disputed questions of facts which exercise could not be undertaken by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. Also maintained that the offer made to the petitioners was accepted and that the petitioners could not wriggle out of the same after obtaining payment as the scheme had been acted upon. Lastly maintained that the Unit had not yet been privatized, therefore, Privatization Commission had no concern with the scheme announced by respondents Nos.2 and 3 at their own.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on the file as well as the report and parawise comments submitted by the respondents.
5. It has been noticed that the petitioners worked under the answering respondents and were relieved from their service on 28-2-1997 by accepting the benefits of Voluntary Separation Scheme 1+2. The payments were voluntarily accepted by the petitioners without raising any protest. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show that at the relevant time any understanding was extended by the respondents that in case a new scheme was introduced the workers would be given the benefits of the said scheme. Subsequently, the Golden Hand Shake Scheme 1+4 was introduced under different circumstances which was not made applicable to the petitioners and others. After having accepted payment under the Voluntary Separation Scheme 1+2 the petitioners cannot wriggle out from the situation as the Scheme has been acted upon. The principle of past and closed transaction is fully attracted to the case of the petitioner as has been laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Miani's case PLD 1973 SC 17.
6. The petitioners have approached this Court after a lapse of 9-1/2 years. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the well-known principle of laches as has been laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Khalil Khan v. Haji Nazir Ahmad and 4 others PLD 1997 SC
304. The petitioners exercised their option on the basis of the Scheme offered by the respondents in the year 1997 whereas the subsequent Scheme was offered to the employees who did not exercise option on the basis of the old Scheme and remained in service of the respondents. Thus, it is obvious that no discrimination has been occasioned to the petitioners as even otherwise reasonable classification is permissible under the law.
7. Under section 16 of Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000, the privatization proceeds can be utilized by the Federal Government for two purposes only viz: "(a) ten per cent. To be used for poverty alleviation programmes; and
(b) the remaining ninety per cent. For retirement of the Federal Government debt."
' The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that on privatization, the funds would be available with respondent No,1, from which the petitioners could be given differential amount is not sustainable in terms of the provision of law referred to above. Even otherwise, the privatization of the Unit has not yet been completed and, therefore, Privatization Commission has no concern with the scheme announced by respondents Nos.2 and 3 at their own.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition has no force which is dismissed.