' TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI, J.- This I.C.A. Has been filed against the judgment dated 11-11-2002 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers. Respondents Nos.1 to 28 filed Writ Petition 1444 of 2001 with the contention that the said respondents are working as Telephone Operators in the International Gateway Exchange since last several years. They are effectually the employees of P.T.C.L. And that they were wrongly being treated as employees of the Telecommunication Foundation respondent No,29 with the result that they are being discriminated against in the matter of emoluments being paid to similarly placed employees of P.T.C.L. The respondents were called upon to furnish their parawise comments. According to the said comments, it is contended that respondents Nos.1 to 28 were not the employees of P.T.C.L. But were in fact employees of Telecommunication Foundation which is merely a Contractor. It was submitted that P.T.C.L. Could not be made responsible for the payment of emoluments of respondents Nos.1 to 28 as they were not its employees.
2. The respective contentions of both the parties were considered by the Judge in Chambers who came to the conclusion that the workman under law may be employed directly by the establishment or through a contractor. The main consideration would be the purpose of service of the employees and if the employees were working for the benefit of an establishment, they shall be deemed to be the employees of such establishment notwithstanding the fact that they may have been engaged initially through a contractor. The writ petition was accordingly allowed and respondents Nos.1 to 28 were declared to be employees of P.T.C.L. Appellant herein.
3. Dr. G.S. Khan, Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that this Court had no jurisdiction in the matter as respondents Nos.1 to 28 claimed to be the employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited and under section 2-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 they would be considered as Civil Servants and the bar of Article 212 of the Constitution would be applicable. It was reiterated that respondents Nos.1 to 28 were- the contract employees of respondent No,29 and that in this view of the matter there was no responsibility of the appellant in respect of payment of emolument to respondents Nos.1 to 28.
4. The learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.1 to 28 has strongly controverted the plea of the appellant and supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court. Respondent No,29, however, supported the plea of the appellant.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. According to the record and the submissions of the parties a contract was entered into between the Telecommunication Foundation and P.T.C.L. On 29-11-1992. It was in pursuance of this agreement that Telecommunication Foundation entered into contracts with the employees on 16- 3-1995. Respondents Nos.l to 28 were placed at the disposal of P.T.C.L. Where they worked upon the International Gateway Exchange which is primarily the functions of the P.T.C.L. We are of the firm view that respondents Nos.l to 28 were employees of P.T.C.L., they were employed to perform the functions of P.T.C.L. On the International Gateway Exchange. It is trite law that whether employees are engaged directly or through a Contractor, they would be deemed the employees of the Establishment for whose benefit they perform functions. Obviously, the Telecom Foundation has no concern with the functioning of the International Gateway Exchange which is primarily function of the P.T.C.L. There is no force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that as the matter relates to the terms and conditions of service, this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain or accept the writ petition. The subject-matter. Before the learned Judge in Chambers as is before this Court in appeal is whether or not the petitioners are employees of P.T.C.L. The bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is not applicable. There is no force in this appeal which his hereby dismissed.