RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.--- Through this intra-court appeal, appellants have challenged judgment dated 13-11-2008 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No,65 of 2007.
2. Precisely, the gist of the facts contained in this appeal are that vide. Finance Division (Regulations Wing) Office Memorandum No,F-4(3) Reg.6 of 2006 read with the TIP Executive Pension Rules, 1986 dated 30-6-2006, appellants and the like pensioners were held entitled to certain pension increase w.e.f, from July 1, 2006, but same was not sanctioned/paid by respondent No,3 despite various representations in writing. The said action of respondent No,3 was challenged through Writ Petition No,65 of 2007, which stood dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that learned Single Judge dismissed Writ Petition on the sole ground that same is not maintainable, as Telephone Industries of Pakistan (TIP) is a Private Limited Company, incorporated under Companies Ordinance, 1984, therefore, no writ can be issued; that learned Single Judge has legally erred while ignoring the law on the subject and also not taken into consideration the fact that 100% shares of the Company are owned by Federal Government through Secretary, Information Technology, with right to Government of Pakistan to nominate its Chairman, Managing Director and Seven Directors, under Article 11(c) of Articles of Association; that learned Single Judge also failed to examine the terms and conditions of service of the appellants' in context of pension governed by the TIP Executives Pension Rules, 1986 and those Rules were compiled in 1986, on the basis of the guidelines of Ministry of Finance. He lastly argued that learned Single Judge was not justified to hold that TIP is a commercial Organization. He heavily relied upon case-law reported as Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation v.
Muhammad Akram Alizai PLD 2002 SC 1079.
4. In response to pre-admission notice, Mr. Abdul Rehman Qadir, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondents and strongly supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge by submitting that judgment is well-reasoned and exhaustive; that learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition has rightly held that respondent is a Private Limited Company, which has been created through Companies Ordinance, 1984; that it has its own Memorandum of Articles and Memorandum of Association and the Board of Directors determines the terms and conditin--; of service of its employees and, any privilege granted by the Government is not automatically extended to the employees of TIP, without approval of Board of Governors, which has not been done in this case; that Telephone Industries of Pakistan (TIP) is a joint venture of Messrs PTCL and Messrs Siemens A.G. Germany and Management vests in a Board or Directors, which has eight members including the Chairman, six of whom are nominated by the Government of Pakistan and two are nominated by Messrs Siemens A.G. Germany. He lastly argued that employees of the Company do not come in the definition of a person performing functions in connection with affairs of Federation or Province, therefore, the said Company was not amenable to issuance of writ under clause 2(a)(i) of Article 199 of Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. He relied upon case-law cited as Salahuddin and 2 others v. Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd. PLD 1975 SC 244 and Maqsood Ahmed, Ahmed Nawaz Khan v. TIP and others passed in Civil Petitions Nos.691 and 692 of 2003 dated 23-2-2005.
5. Besides hearing both the sides, we have also given our serious consideration to the controversy in question, keeping in view the dictums laid down on the issue.
6. It is an admitted position that Telephone Industries of Pakistan (TIP) is a Private Limited Company, which is registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and is a joint venture of Messrs PTCL and Messrs Siemens A.G. Germany and its Management vests in a Board of Directors, having their own Memorandum of Articles and memorandum of Association, which determines the terms and conditions of service of its employees. Those are distinguished from Government and Semi-Government Agencies and Functionaries, with regard to the 'person' performing the functions in connection with affairs of the Federation, or the Province, therefore, it does not fall within the purview of Article 199(a)(i), which reads as under:-- (a)(i) directing a person performing, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority, to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do, or to do anything he is required by law to do"
7. Thus, in view of above, the respondent No,2, who is a Private Limited Company, cannot be termed as a "person" performing within the territorial jurisdiction of Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants' has not been able to point out any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge-in- Chamber.
9. The case-law referred by the learned counsel for the appellants has been examined but the same has no bearing only lis in issue.
10. Consequently, the impugned order being elaborative, well-reasoned and comprehensive does not require any interference. Hence the appeal, being devoid of any substance, fails and is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.