HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J. --- Through this single judgment, I propose to decide Writ Petitions Nos. 17407, 17422 and 18084 all of 2008, alongwith this petition, as common question of law is involved.
2. The facts leading to this writ petition are that the respondents-PTCL introduced a Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) on 15.11.2007, almost thirty thousand employees including the petitioners opted the said scheme and according to the petitioners the management under harassment and compulsion has denied the benefit of pension and medical benefits to those who have completed ten years of service and has just given the said benefits to those who have completed twenty years of service.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the attitude of the respondents management is highly unfair, unjust, inequitable and discriminatory, so they be directed to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioners bn the basis of their service rendered for more than ten years, to grant medical benefits and all other retirement benefits in line with the pensionary benefits, to grant pay scales and prepare pay structure comparable to Government employees with effect from 01.07.2005 and pensionary benefits be calculated on such pay structure.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits writ is not maintainable, as the PTCL is a privatized and against a private company writ cannot be issued. Further submits that the petitioners had an alternate remedy by way of filing appeal within 180 days of the VSS announcement date, as per provisions of VSS terms and conditions. Further submits that the petitioners have already received all the emoluments and now they are estopped to-challenge the said VSS or its consequences.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. So far the objection of maintainability is concerned, first of all I have to advert to this being a foremost question. To my mind of course the PTCL is privatized, but the fact remains that 62% shares in the company continued to remain with the Federal Government and only 26% shares were transferred to the proposed buyer of controlling shares and in such-like situation, the respondents company cannot be termed a fully privatized, rather it is under the control of Federal Government being major holder of the shares.
7. Such-like situation was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as Salahuddin and 2 others v. Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Ltd., Takht Bhai and 10 others (PLD 1975 SC 244), wherein it is held,--- "Person including body corporate can be regarded as person performing functions in connection with affairs of Federation etc. If functions entrusted to them are indeed functions .Of State or if control of organization vests substantially in hands of Government-Writ competent".
8. In a case reported as Muhammad Aslam Saleemi v. Pakistan Television Corporation (PLD 1977 Lahore 842) a Full Bench of this Court held.--- "Even if it were to be assumed that Pakistan Television Corporation is a Private Limited Company, there is authority to the effect that where there is a date requiring certain act to be performed a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus can be issued to it"
9. In another case reported as Central Board of Revenue and another v. S.I.T.E. (PLD 1985 SC 97), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held,- "Company carrying on function of Industrial Development and Trade and business connected therewith for and on behalf of company was doing all this just like a department of Government- Notwithstanding incorporation of company, it would not make any difference regarding relevant Constitutional provisions on exemption from Federal Taxation".
10. A Full Bench of this Court also held in the case titled Muhammad Zubair lkram v. Aitchison College, Lahore through its Principal (NLR 2000 Civil 519), -- "Corporation which remains under domir control of Government would be amenable to Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art, 199".
11. This judgment of the Full Bench cf this Court was confirmed by the apex Court in the case reported as Aitchison College. Lahore v. Muhammad Zubait Ikram (PLD 2002 SC 326), wherein it is held,--- "Board of Governors. Aitchison College, Lahore headed by the Governor of the Province as its President alongwith other officers i.e. Secretaries Education, Finance and General Officer Commanding as well as unofficial Members, therefore, were involved in providing education which was one of the responsibility of the State and by taking over its management and control of the Board, exercised sovereign powers as well as public powers being a statutory functionary of Government who in order to provide it full legal/Constitutional protection, had brought the same into the folds of He Education Department by attending the Province Rules of Business-Board of Governors, in circumstances would be regarded as a "person" performing functions in connection with the affairs of a Province and squarely fell within the definition of a "person" under Art. 199(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973) notwithstanding the fact that Aitchison College was not receiving any financial assistance from the Provincial Government".
12. In another case titled Syed Arshad A.I and 55 others v. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. Through President and 8 others (PLD 2007 Karachi 214), a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition was raised on the same ground as in the present writ petition but it was repelled holding that the petition is maintainable.
13. Following the law supra, I am of th considered view that writ against PTCL is competent, thus le objection of the learned counsel for the respondents it respect of maintainability of the writ petition is repelled.
14 There is another aspect which is also important to be resolved and that is that the petitioner were very much in knowledge that they could file appeal.; within 180 days of the VSS announcement date according to its terms and conditions, but undisputedly they did not avail this remedy, which is a sufficient ground for non-suitting them. However, the conduct of the petitioners is to be examined further and that is that the VSS was announced on 15.11.2007, it was very comprehensive, it was floated before fifty thousand employees of PTCL being a voluntary scheme, thirty-five thousand out of fifty thousand employees opted for the same, fifteen thousand employees who not avail were not forced to opt for the same, 180 days period was granted to every employee to file an appeal against the said scheme, none of the petitioners approached the appropriate authorities in the said stipulated time, all of them in and signed the requisite forms without any rules and compulsion and drew/received all the employments, but surprisingly after ten months of availing the benefits filed these writ petitions, ignoring that it was specifically mentioned in the terms and conditions of VSS that,--- "Once it is submitted, the option/waiver form will not be allowed to be withdrawn".
"The payment of VSS benefits by PTCL to accepted employees shall be in full and final settlement of all dues and employees shall not be entitled to pursue any action, claim or legal proceedings of any kind, whatsoever, against PTCL thereafter."
15. These terms and conditions were not vague in nature, rather explicit in terms, all the petitioners are literate, before opting for the VSS all of them a :plied their independent mind to the terms and conditions, of the VSS and then signed the papers, drew all the benefits and kept silent for ten long months, thus they are estopped to agitate against the same.
16. After hearing both the parties at length, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have nth case at all which can call for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, particularly when it is a discretionary relief. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly.