1. DECISION ' ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH (MEMBER).--- By this common decision, I propose to dispose of the above five appeals which have been filed before the High Court of Sindh Circuit Bench at Hyderabad and the same were received from the High Court of Sindh after coming into existence of this Tribunal, filed by the above named appellant/Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited against the order dated 31st. October, 2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,VI, Hyderabad.
2. Brief facts of the matter are that the above appellant Company is a Statutory Company and earlier created as a department of Telegraph and Telephone which was later on converted as Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation and then appellant is converted into a company owned by the Federal Government or its allied departments. In the year 1997 appellant company had announced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). The same was applicable upto 31st October, 1997 but later on period was extended upto January, 1998. The period for relieving the employees was extended upto 28th February, 1998. All the respondents serving the appellant company having service of more than ten years, as such, they applied for retirement on the above scheme. But before the acceptance/relieving/payment all the respondents have submitted two separate requests for withdrawal of options. First one is not clear but the second one is very clear and the options have been withdrawn by the respondents unconditional before its effectivity. The appellant company has ignored their withdrawal of options and issued retirement letter and relieved them from the duties. Respondents served their representations and approached the Federal Service Tribunal as at that time all these respondents were civil servants. Resultantly, the appeal before Federal Service Tribunal was preceded and decided in favour of the respondents vide judgment dated 6- 7-2005. Appellant hereinabove had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeals bearing Nos.2363 to 2370 of 2005 but later on the appellant corporation did not press the above petitions, as such, the same were dismissed/disposed of accordingly vide order dated 24-2-2006. The respondents again approached to the Federal Service Tribunal for implementation of the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal when the judgment in the case of Muhammad Mubeenus Salam was announced on 26-6-2006 as reported in PLD 2006 SC 602 hence the application for implementation was declared abated. Thereafter, the respondents approached the learned Labour Court and after conclusion of trial their applications for redressal of grievances were allowed vide order dated 31-10-2007. Being aggrieved to the said order of the learned Labour Court, the appellant had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh in Labour Appeals as at that time Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 was applicable and accordingly the High Court of Sindh had the jurisdiction. Lateron, due to enforcement of Industrial Relations Act, 2008 and then Industrial Relations (Revival and Amendment) Act, 2010 as amended, these appeals have been transferred to this Tribunal.
3. ' Learned counsel for the appellant has also filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with section 151, C.P.C: with the prayer that the appeal be amended, on which notice was given to the respondents and the learned Counsel for the respondents filed objections.
4. ' I have gone through the application, its affidavit, proposed amended appeal and the objections filed by the respondents and I felt that the application is misconceived as the proceedings before any Court of Law under I.R.O. 1969 or 2002 or I.R.A. 2008 cannot be changed as the same have been protected under the saving clause as available in all the above laws. Here I want to refer section 86 of I.R.A. 2008 and the same is reproduced hereunder:--- "86. Transfer of pending proceedings.--- All appeals and applications of any kind pending in any High Court immediately before the commencement of this Act shall stand transferred to the Labour Appellate tribunals from the date of the commencement of this Act and it shall not be necessary for the Labour Appellate Tribunal to recall and witness or record any evidence that may have been recorded."
5. I am surprised by filing of the said application for amendment as the High Court of Sindh while passing the order of transfer of the matter has observed in the following words:--- "Since the matter has not been finally heard, therefore, this appeal is hereby transferred to Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal for its disposal. Office is directed to dispatch to the Tribunal."
6. ' I believe that this application does not require any consideration hence the same is dismissed.
7. After hearing the parties and. Going through the record and proceedings as well as written arguments submitted by the learned Counsel for the parties. I have come to the conclusion that the appellant company met the respondents with high-handedness as after not pressing the Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal, appellant company is bound by law to implement the said judgment and not to raise any objection before the learned Labour Court or before this Tribunal. It is an admitted fact that the appeals of the respondents workers were heard and decided in their favour by the Federal Service Tribunal, therefore, appellant company is legally bound to implement the judgment of the Tribunal, but the appellant fails to abide by the judgment and un-necessarily forced/compelled to file the present proceedings and deliberately kept them out of the job otherwise they are entitled to serve the appellant as per judgment passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, hence they are also entitled for complete back benefits including enhancement of wages and payment of other financial benefits, as given to other employees in service.
8. ' The evidence on record before the learned Labour Court clearly supports that all the respondents are worker as they are performing manual and clerical work and it has never been deniea by the appellant company that the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 are not applicable, hence the termination is not in accordance with law. I am also fortified with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as reported in 2000 SCM R 1964 which provides as under:--- "No inflexible rule of law existed that option of retirement once exercised was final and could not be retreated under any circumstances. "
9. As it is a matter of record that the respondents have withdrawn their option before its effective date i,e, 28th February, 1998 and in many cases the Federal Service Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that if the option has been withdrawn before the effective date of retirement the same should be considered as withdrawn, hence once the respondent workers have withdrawn their option, therefore, the retirement even on extra benefits is illegal and more particularly when the Service. Tribunal has passed to the said effect.
10. ' In view of the above, the order of the learned Labour Court dated 31st October, 2007 is maintained and appellant' company is directed to reinstate the respondent workers and thereafter determine the amount of wages and, other emoluments (back benefits) payable to them under the law in terms of the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal and learned Labour Court and after such determination deduct such amount paid to the respondent workers in view of their V.R.S. The compliance of the decision shall be made within one month.