The above captioned grievance petitions since involve the same facts and issue in law and, therefore, are being disposed of by this single order.
2. The petitioners in the above captioned grievance petitions were employed in different capacities in State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan (SLIC). A Voluntary Retirement Separation Scheme
(VRSS) was introduced by the (SLIC) on 15.11.2000. The scheme also stipulated that such option once exercised was irrevocable. The petitioners/ employees opted for VRS Scheme. Such options were accepted and they (petitioners) were relieved from service. On 13.12.2000 the management issued Circular No, P&G/PO/125/2000 requiring all the optees of VRS Scheme to file two under- takings before full and final settlement of their dues.
3. The contention of the petitioners employees is that VRS Scheme was not actually a voluntary scheme rather could be said as compulsory scheme which was imposed upon the employees like them in a coercive measure compelling employees by giving verbal direction either to sign the same or leave the office immediately. According to the petitioners though under the compelling circumstances they opted for the scheme but soon after submission of their options they made applications on 30.11.2000 for withdrawal of the same but no heed was paid to their request of withdrawal of options rather they were thrown out of the job through the above said cruel scheme and were compulsory retired from service in an arbitrary manner. They submitted their appeals/request for reinstatement in service but the same were rejected against which they filed appeals before the learned FST for redressal of their grievance but the same were dismissed vide order dated 18.05.2010. They challenged the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan through Civil Petitions No, 1792 to 1825 of 2010 which were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.09.2010 to approach the proper forum for their grievances.
4. In this back drop, the petitioners served the respondents with grievance notice dated 01.10.2010 and having no response from the respondent Insurance Corporation, they filed the above captioned petitions before the Labour Court, Islamabad (since defunct).
5. Besides taking the plea that VRS Scheme was not a voluntary scheme rather was a compulsory scheme compelling the employees either to sign the same or leave the job, the petitioners have contended that though under the compelling circumstances they opted for the scheme but soon after submission of their options, they made applications on 30.11.2000 for withdrawal of the same which were not responded by the management of respondent corporation rather they were compulsory retired from service in an arbitrary manner through the above said cruel scheme. It has also been contended by the petitioners that some of their colleagues in similar circumstances challenged their compulsory retirement before the Federal Service Tribunal through Appeals No, 704, 714 & 725 (L) C.E/2000 which were decided in their favour setting-aside their retirement under the scheme and directing their reinstatement with post benefits observing that clause-VIII of Golden Hand Scheme did not effect the rights of the appellants' to withdraw their options for retirement, as a government servant can withdraw his request for retirement before his retirement is notified or retirement order was conveyed to him. Further in identical cases a detailed decision was made by the FST which was challenged by the respondent Insurance Corporation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeals No, 1739/2002 to 1742/2008 titled State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan Versus Rana Ashiq Ali etc but the same were dismissed upholding the decision of FST. The petitioners in addition to the above have assailed the orders of their retirement from service on the ground that same were passed without holding of inquiry and giving opportunity of personal hearing which is violative of principle of natural justice, against the dictums laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and also contrary to the Industrial and Commercial Employment Standing Orders, (Ordinance) 1968 and thus being illegal, void abinitio, perverse, unjust, having no legal effect are liable to be set-aside. Lastly they prayed for their reinstatement into service with all back benefits.
6. The contesting Respondents No, 2 & 3 instead of filing parawise comments in the grievance petitions, moved in each grievance petition an application under Order VII, Rule 11 for rejection of the grievance petition mainly on the grounds that the grievance petitions are hopelessly time barred having been moved after laps of more than 11 years; that the appeals of the petitioners were previously dismissed by the learned FST as such grievance petitions are hit by the principle of resjudicata. The petitioners resisted these applications by filing their written reply.
7. In the wake of judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Air League of PIAC Employees versus Federation of Pakistan etc reported in 2011 SCM R 1254, all the above grievance petitions were received through transfer from the Labour Court Islamabad (now defunct).
8. Mr.Tahir Malik learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Corporation while making his submissions denied the allegation of coercion allegedly made by the respondents on the petitioners to accept the VRSS which according to him, the appellants had accepted voluntarily on their free will and had obtained all the service benefits voluntarily. No request for withdrawal of option as alleged was made or received and the photo state copies appended with the grievance petitions showing withdrawal applications are fake and after thought. According to him under such circumstances the appellants were estopped from going back of their options which they had voluntarily exercised and the same under clause-VIII of VRSS in question could not be revoked, cancelled/withdrawn as alleged by them, as such their petitions were liable to be dismissed. He also argued that the petitioners/employees had previously filed their appeals before learned FST but the same were dismissed observing that the appellants/employees had exercised the option of VRSS in the year 2000 and claimed to have submitted departmental appeals for withdrawal of options on 30.11.2000, i,e, on the day when VRSS was accepted by the respondents. Thereafter they appear to have quietly accepted the decision until 2009 and filed appeals in 2009 after laps of almost nine years which were hopelessly time barred. He yet next argued that the petitioners filed their appeals before Hon'ble Supreme Court of. Pakistan but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on the statement of learned counsel for the petitions and as such the grievance petitions now filed by the petitioners are hit by the principle of resjudicata. According to him these grievance petitions filed after 11 years of the cause of action are hopelessly time barred and no plausible explanation for delay in filing the petitions has been put forth and thus in such state of affairs same are liable to be dismissed. Lastly in view of his above submission he urged for acceptance of the applications under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC and dismissal of all the grievance petitions.
9. Conversely the learned counsel for the petitioners/employees argued that the object behind the introduction of VRS Scheme was malafide and circular dated 15.11.2000 also posed a threat for the employees, that if the corporation did not achieve the objects through VRS scheme, then immediate thereafter the services of the employees shall be dispensed with under the relevant service regulations. The circular, in fact, aimed at removing the employees from service by resorting to departmental action under efficiency and discipline rules. He next argued that the options from the, petitioners/employees were obtained under threat because if they failed to exercise/options they were to be proceeded against under the relevant service regulations.
According to him though under compelling circumstances the petitioners/employees opted for the same but soon thereafter made applications on 30.11.2000 for withdrawal of the same which were not responded and the petitioners were compulsory retired from service in an arbitrary manner.
The orders of retirement were passed without holding of inquiry and providing an opportunity for personal hearing as such the same were contrary to principle of natural justice and against the dictums of superior Courts and being illegal, void abinitio and having no lawful effect were liable to be set-aside. He yet next argued that some of the colleagues of the petitioners in similar circumstances challenged their compulsory retirement before learned FST through their Appeals No, 704, 714 & 725 of 2000 which were decided in their favour vide order dated 02.10.2002 directing their reinstatement and the civil appeals No, 1739 to 1742 of the respondent corporation against the said judgement were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He added that the petitioners were being discriminated by not reinstating in service despite the decision afore stated. Replying to the question of limitation as raised by the learned counsel for the respondents he through admitted filing of previous appeals by the appellants/petitioners against their retirements in the FST and dismissal there from being barred by limitation yet he stressed that in view of the permission given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to lodge grievance petitions before proper forum, on the appeals of the petitioners vide order dated 15.09.2010, the delay if any stood condoned and further no limitation run against void order. He has. placed reliance on 1992 SCM R 2135, 1995 SCMR 1026. Lastly in view of his above submissions he urged for rejection of the applications under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC and decision of grievance petitions on merits.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.
11. Admittedly, the VRS scheme was introduced on 15.11.2000. The petitioners volunteered for the scheme before 28.11.2000, their option were accepted and consequently they were relived from duties. Much stress was laid by the learned counsel for the petitioners about the element of coercion concealed in the VRS scheme and that the petitioners fearing their compulsory retirement from service under compelling circumstances opted for the same but soon thereafter made applications on 29.11.2000 for withdrawal of their petitions which were not responded and they were compulsory retired from service in an arbitrary manner. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Corporation repelled this stance of learned counsel for the petitioners by saying that no request for withdrawal of options as alleged was made or received and the photo state copies appended with the grievance petitions showing withdrawal applications are fake and afterthought. According to him the petitioners had with their free will volunteered for the scheme and after acceptance of their options had also received voluntarily their all services benefits.
Factum of receipt of service benefits as alleged has not been specifically denied in the petitions nor during arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is worth mentioning that in para 3 of the petitions it is stated that petitioners submitted their applications for withdrawal of option on 30.11.2010 but photo state copies of VRS scheme recall applications reveal that these applications were made on 29.11.2000. Further these copies nowhere show the acknowledgement of receipt of the same by the management of respondent corporation, hence are not free from doubt and appears to be an afterthought story. It is not out of place to mention here that the petitioners had exercised the option of VRS scheme in the year 2000, though they claimed to have submitted departmental appeal for withdrawal of option on 29.11.2000 on the day when VRS scheme was accepted by the respondent but they appeared to have quietly accepted the decision until 2009 and then coming from slumber after laps almost nine years filed appeals in 2009 before FST which fact speaks about the element of presence of acquiescence on the part of the petitioners. The appeals filed by the petitioners before FST were dismissed vide judgement dated 18.5.2010 observing the same having been filed after laps of nine years as hopelessly time barred. The petitioners assailed the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court through Civil Petitions No, 1792 to 1825 of 2010. The same were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.09.2010. It was strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the respondents Insurance Corporation that the Civil Petitions No, 1792 to 1825 of 2010 against the judgement of learned FST dated 18.05.2010 were since dismissed as withdrawn on the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner as such the judgement of FST dated 18.05.2010 attained finality and the grievance petitions now filed are not only hit by the principle of resjudicata but also having been filed after 11 years of cause of action furnishing no plausible explanation for delay in institution are hopelessly time barred and as such are liable to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioners though admitted filing of previous appeals by petitioners against their retirement in the FST and dismissal of the same there from being barred by limitation, yet he stressed that in view of permission to lodge grievances petitions before proper forum given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while dismissing the Civil Petitions No, 1792 to 1825 of 2010 vide order dated 15.09.2010, the delay in filing the grievance petitions stood condoned and further no limitation runs against void order and by no stretch of imagination the judgement of FST operates as resjudicata. Reliance was placed on 1992 SCM R 2135 and 1995 SCMR 1026.
12. For connivance, operative part of the order dated 15.09.2010 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced below:-- "Learned Counsel states that although the petitioners have been non-suited on limitation but without touching the merits of the case, whereas, they have got good case on merits and in view of development which has taken place on account of enactment of Removal from Service (Special Powers) (Repeal) Act, 2010 and by means of Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2010, petitioners have got remedy before the forum other than the Service Tribunal, permission be accorded to him to withdraw the instant petitions. He further states that according to the available material their status is of the workman or worker, therefore, they can approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance. In view of above statement all these petitions are dismissed as withdrawn."
A careful reading of the above makes it clear that aforesaid civil petitions were dismissed as withdrawn on the statement of learned counsel for the petitioners. Any permission to file the grievance petitions before proper forum in my humble view was neither sought nor granted. As such the judgment of FST dated 18.05.2010 attained finality and operates as resjudicata and even by any stretch of calculation, the grievance petitions filed after 11 years of the accrual of cause of action regarding the VRS scheme are hopelessly time barred. The plea that delay in filing the grievance petitions stood condoned in the light of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the previous petitions is based on fallacious view and devoid of any force. Much capital cannot be made on the plea A that no limitation runs against void orders as VRS scheme was a bilateral arrangements between employees and the management for which the petitioners with their free will volunteered to opt resulting into their voluntary retirement from service and in my humble view as held in 1992 SCM R 2135 a party to a contract who has enjoyed a benefit under it, cannot, when the right to get either rescission or reformation of the contract is barred, say that he is not bound by one of its term. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner having no relevance to the facts of the case in hand is not of any help to the petitioners. Likewise the plea that the orders of retirement of the petitioners were made without holding of any inquiry or giving opportunity of personal hearing is misconceived and also not much convincing, as has already been said that as VRS scheme was a bilateral arrangement between the employees and management regarding voluntary retirement of the employees, therefore, there was no need to hold any inquiry as the matter did not relate to any disciplinary proceedings against the employees.
13. It was also contended that some other colleagues of the petitioners under similar circumstances had been reinstated on the strength of judgment of FST dated 02.10.2002 of FST Bench at Lahore passed in Appeals No, 704, 714 & 725 of 2000 and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed by bench of FST at Karachi vide judgment dated 31.10.2003 in Appeals No, 302, 427 to 431, 490, 492 to 494 (K)(CE)/2001 therefore, dictatesr of justice demanded that the petitioners should also be treated likewise and reinstated in service. I have carefully gone through the aforesaid judgments, perusal whereof goes to show that in cases under appeals before Lahore Bench and Karachi Bench of the FST, the appellants/employees had made application for withdrawal of the options before their retirement and they had since not received any benefits, therefore their cases were distinguished from the cases of the employees like present petitioners who had already received/had been paid or given the service benefits and as such were not entitled to reinstatement in service sought by them. More so the Karachi Bench of FST dismissed the cases identical to the cases of petitioners vide judgment in Appeal No, 468 to 470(K)(C.E)/2001 and appeal against the said judgment being Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 217-K to 219- K of 2002 were also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgement dated 4.7.2002 holding that appeals were time barred and the appellants having voluntarily exercised the option (with no evidence of exerting any force on them by the respondents) and they had since voluntarily received all the services benefits it was a closed transaction. In such circumstances on this score too the petitioners have no case for the grant of relief claimed by them.
14. In the light of what has been discussed above, all the above captioned grievance petitions merit dismissal. The applications under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC are thus accepted and the grievance petitions are accordingly dismissed. The files to records.