1. ' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.---The petitioner is a registered association who claims to be working for rights of employees and officers working in the Trading Corporation of Pakistan, respondent No,2.
2. ' Following reliefs have been prayed in the petition:--
(a) Direct the respondents not to induct/reinstate/appoint to the Ex-employees of defunct Rice Export Corporation (R.E.F.P.) and Cotton Export Corporation (C.E.C.) in to Trading Corporation of Pakistan (T.C.P.)
(b) Restrain/prohibit the respondents to induct/reinstate/appoint the Ex-employees and officer of R.E.C.P. And C.E.C, whose services were terminated according to the service rules and regulations of the corporations at the prevailing time.
(c) Safeguard the basic rights of Trading Corporation of Pakistan's employees and officeRs, ' Learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with two questions firstly, how this petition is maintainable in view of pronouncement by the Supreme Court in the case of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Tanveer-ur-Rehman (PLD 2010 SC 303) and secondly, how the petitioner can be an aggrieved person if anyone else is employed in the respondent organization.
3. ' Learned counsel contended that the persons who have been taken in employment by the respondent organization have been taken in employment in violation of the provisions contained in the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2009. The contention is obviously misconceived. The Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2009 confers right on certain persons to be taken back in employment and does not restrict right of an employer to take any other person into his employment. Be that as it may, since there are no statutory rules in the respondent organization obviously the Constitution Petition is not be maintainable.
4. ' As to the second objection that since it is an association who has filed petition, therefore, it is not an aggrieved person and therefore, the petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel has relied upon Afroz Ilahi and 2 others v. Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and another (1990 MLD 828) and Sindh Graduates Association and another v. The State Bank of Pakistan and 2 others (1992 MLD 2238). In Afroz Ilahi case respondent No,1 granted 99 years lease in 1950 to one Ghulam Qadir who was also consequently put in possession. The plot was sold by Ghulam Qadir to one Muhammad Ishaq and upon later death his legal heirs were duly mutated. The plot was further sold in 1978 and again sold in 1980 to the petitioneRs, Petitioners also purchased the adjacent plot. Director Parks and Recreation of K.D.A. Informed the owners of the plots that plots were lying unutilized and had become a nuisance. It was stated that K.M.C. Desired to clear the plots and to look after them and to keep them clean. They were assured that their ownership and occupancy rights would not be affected in any way. Commissioner Karachi initiated land acquisition proceedings for public purpose namely Public Park. Acquisition proceedings were challenged through constitutional petition and petitioner challenged title of Ghulam Qadir. It was in this context that it was observed as under:- "In our view, the petitioners have some interest in the plot as to entitle them to file the above petition. It may be observed that in order to maintain a Constitutional petition, a petitioner need not possess a legal right in stricto sensu but if he can show that he has some personal interest in the subject-matter, he can maintain a petition. In this behalf, reference may be made to the well known Supreme Court case, namely Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore and another reported in PLD 1969 SC 223, in which the petitioner had impugned the modification of a development scheme by the Lahore Improvement Trust, one of the objections to the petition raised by the learned counsel for the Trust was that the petitioner had no right to maintain a writ petition.
5. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a petitioner need not necessarily have a right in the strict juristic sense but it is enough if the petitioner discloses that he had a personal interest in the performance of the legal duty which if not performed or performed in a manner not permitted by law would result in the loss of some personal benefit or advantage or the curtailment of a privilege or liberty or franchise."
6. ' In Sindh Graduates Association Case (supra) the facts were that association was established with the objects of, inter alia, organizing and uniting Sindhi Graduates and to redressing unemployment and their social grievances. The second petitioner was Secretary of the First petitioner. Two letters were issued by the State Bank of Pakistan, laying down policy regarding employment of children of deceased officeRs, Petition was filed to challenge these letteRs, It was observed in the context of maintainability of the petition as under:- "As regards the first objection raised by the respondents that the petitioners have no locus standi to file this petition it can be stated that in view of the latest decision of the superior Courts a wide meaning has been given to term, aggrieved person". In the case of Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan reported in PLD 1988 SC 416, it has been held that the proceedings in case of violation of fundamental rights of an individual can be maintained by that particular individual whose fundamental rights have been infringed or by a person bona fide alleging infringement of such fundamental rights of a class or a group of persons. The Supreme Court in that case held, "the rule of locus standi has since been relaxed leaving aside the rigid notion of an "aggrieved person", and the proceedings can now be activised bona fide by any person on behalf of a group or a group or a class of persons."
7. ' It may be pointed out that in a Democratic Workers' Union C.B.A. v. State Bank of Pakistan 2002 PLC (C.S.) 614, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that a Collective Bargaining Agent cannot claim locus standi to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution for the alleged violation of statutory or fundamental rights of its membeRs, In Mutual Funds Association of Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan and another (2010 PLC 306) a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us, (Shahid Anwar Bajwa.
8. J.) was a member, considered this question and after referring to Pakistan Steel Re-Rolling Mills Association v. Province of West Pakistan (1964 PLC 121) and Muntazima Committee, Al-Mustafa Colony, Karachi and 3 others v. Director Katchi Abadi Sindh and 5 others (PLD 1992 Karachi 54) observed as under:-- "Apart from the above, there is another reason that the petitioner cannot be held to be entitled to maintain a petition in respect of its membeRs, Whatever is the decision passed in this petition, how can it be held, and binding upon, against person who are not party to this petition. Suppose tomorrow a member of this association comes with a similar petition and when he is shown decision of this petition what is there to stop him from saying that he was not a party in this petition and therefore how could order made in this petition be valid against such a member. In order to constitute res judicata, it is essential that order be made between the same parties. Mere fact that one of the objects as contained in the Memorandum of Association of the petitioner is promoting etc., interest of its members is not sufficient to put the petitioner in the shoes of its members and hold him entitled to maintain petition in respect of a cause which could conceivably cause grievance to its membeRs, Therefore, we hold that petitioner is not an aggrieved person in respect of applicability of the amendment introduced in Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971 by Finance Act, 2008 to its members and therefore, is not entitled to maintain this petition in respect of grievance, if any and whatsoever they may be, of any of its membeRs,"
9. ' The Case of Afroz Ilahi (supra) is clearly distinguishable because it was in respect of an amenity plot which was proposed to be used as a park and therefore all the residents of that area had an interest in it. Moreover, it was a case in which an individual was the petitioner and not a corporate body. In the case of Sindh Graduates Association (supra) it may be noted that apart from the association an individual who claimed to be the Secretary of the Association was also a petitioner.
10. Moreover, the benefits sought to be claimed was for indeterminate number of persons belonging to a class. It is also therefore, clearly distinguishable.
11. ' In view of the clear pronouncement of this Court in Democratic Union case (supra) and Mutual Funds case (supra) we do not think that the petitioner's association is competent to maintain a grievance petition as it cannot be an aggrieved person in respect of any grievance, whether statutory or in respect of fundamental rights, of any or all of its membeRs, ' For the above reasons, this Constitutional Petition is dismissed in limine.