' FAISAL ARAB, J.--- All these connected petitions have been filed against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the private respondents were employees of the petitioner and had been working as Telephone Operators. In the year 2007, the petitioner launched "PTCL Voluntary Separation Scheme" (hereinafter referred to as VSS). Under this scheme separate offer letters were written to each of its employees. Appended with each offer letter was an application containing estimated value of benefits which each employee was to get from the petitioner company. Those employees who have put in minimum 20 qualifying years of service were entitled to receive pensionary benefits as well. This benefit of pension was to be reflected in the offer letter under heading titled as "Commutation and Monthly Pension". As qualifying length of service of the private respondents was shown to be less than 20 years, no amount was reflected under the said heading.
The case of the private respondents before the petitioner company was that they have put in more than 20 years of service, therefore, they were entitled to pensionary benefits as well apart from general benefits offered under the VSS. There was a provision of appeal provided under the VSS and this was to be exercised by filing of "appeal intake form". As the private respondents disputed their length of service shown by the petitioner company, they opted to file appeal by filing "appeal intake form" and stated their actual date of joining the service. All private respondents claimed that they have put in more than 20 years' service and hence are entitled to pensionary benefits as well.
The petitioner company, however, did not accept the claim of the private respondents as to their length of service. The private respondents were thus constrained to file grievance petition before the Labour Court, which was allowed. It was held that sufficient evidence was brought on record to establish that each of the private respondents has served more than 20 years in service and hence were entitled to the additional benefit that was to be given under the heading "commutation and monthly pension". The petitioner company preferred appeals against the judgment of the Labour Court before the Labour Appellate Tribunal which were dismissed, hence these petitions.
3. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Haider Waheed argued that the private respondents did not fall within the definition of "workmen" as they after accepting the benefits under the VSS ceased to be petitioner's employees and, therefore, not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. He next contended that the provisions of section 46 of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 2002, can only be invoked when there is an industrial dispute which is defined in section 2(xvi) of the IRO, 2002 and the present case is not of an industrial dispute. He also contended that the offers made under the VSS cannot be described as an industrial dispute so as to attract the provisions of section 46 of the IRO, 2002. He next contended that in the office letters specific amount which each employee was to get was mentioned and the same was full and final settlement amount under the VSS and upon acceptance of such amount the private respondents cannot turn around and seek additional benefit. Petitioner's counsel concluded by stating that in case the offered amount was not acceptable to the private respondents, they should have not accepted it. In support of his contentions, Mr. Haider Waheed relied upon the cases reported in 1994 SCMR 2213, 1963 PLC 951, 2006 PLC 597, 2004 PLC 250, 1989 PLC 454 and 2006 SCMR 783.
4. Counsel for the. private respondents, on the other hand, contended that the offer under the Voluntary Separation Scheme was backed by a threat that in case it is not accepted the private respondents would be declared 'redundant' and would be shown the door. He referred to the Employees Information Section contained in the VSS application wherein each of the private respondents has been described as 'redundant'. He submitted that under this hostile environment i,e, declaring the private respondents as redundant they opted settlement under the VSS but at the same time disputed, the length of service which was shown by the petitioner company in the offer letters, therefore, exercising the right of appeal provided under the VSS itself they filled in "appeal intake form" that was made available to them by the petitioner company and upon" rejection of their claim as to length of service they were forced to file grievance application before the Labour Court which is the only forum available to a workman under the law. He further contended that where right accrues to a workman during the course of his employment, it is the Labour Court which is the proper forum to enforce such a right. He next contended that before the Labour Court no objection was raised by the petitioner company that the private respondents are not workmen and the same has been raised for the first time. The petitioner company after contesting the matter and having lost on merits has belatedly raised the objection of jurisdiction for the first time before this Court. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the cases reported in 2005 SCMR 100, 1991 SCMR 1041, 2011 SCMR 1344 and PLD 2007 SC 35.
5. Counsel for the petitioner in reply argued that the point of jurisdiction can be taken at any stage of the proceedings and as the private respondents ceased to hold employment after accepting the benefit under the VSS they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Court. In support of his contentions he relied upon the cases reported in 2006 SCMR 783, 1987 SCMR 1463, 2006 PLC (C.S.)
1173, 1992 PLC (Labour) 116, 2008 SCMR 240 and 2011 PLC (C.S.) 641.
6. The concurrent findings of both the Courts below show that all the private respondents have put in more than 20 years of service and this fact has not been denied by the petitioner company in these petitions. No ground has been taken to show that the dates of joining service as claimed by private respondents which are based on documentary evidence was incorrect. In fact, these documents are part of record of the petitioner company itself. The private respondents were Telephone Operators and by virtue of their nature of duties all of them fall within the definition of "workmen". They accepted the severance of their ties with the petitioner company by opting settlement under the VSS which itself carries a provision of appeal and the same was exercised by raising a claim that they have put in more than 20 years of service. Therefore, they are entitled to the pensionary benefits as well that was part of the offer contained under the VSS itself and when it was established in evidence that they had put in more than 20 years' service all of them have become entitled to pensionary benefits under the VSS. In the offer letter it is stated that the private respondents have become redundant, which itself was a threat compelling the respondents to accept the offer under VS3. Upon acceptance of the offer, all the terms and conditions provided under the VSS became binding on both the parties. One of the terms was that if an employee has put in more than 20 years' service he was entitled to pensionary benefits.
6. As to the point of jurisdiction of Labour Court, we are of the view that any right that has accrued to a workman during or at the time of terminating his service can be agitated by him before the Labour Court even though he no more remains in service. We, therefore, find no legal infirmity in the conclusion drawn by both the Courts below. Hence these petitions are dismissed.