Through this single order I intend to dispose of the titled writ petition as well as W.P. No. 8508 of 2013 (TEVTA vs. Sajid Mehmood) and W.P. No. 8509 of 2013 (TEVTA vs. Raja Idrees) as common questions of facts and law are involved in all these matters.
2. Petitioner in these writ petitions has impugned the judgment dated 07.05.2013 passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No. II, Multan and dated 24.09.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan respectively.
3. Brief facts of the case are that respondents Hasnain Haider and Raja Idrees were appointed as cashiers while Sajid Mehmood was appointed as accountant on 06.02.2006 in the Institute of Blue Pottery Development (IBPD), Multan.
Petitioner is a body incorporated and established by the Government of the Punjab under the Punjab Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority Act, 2010, it establishes, maintains, regulates and administers various technical institutions as defined under Section 2(1) of the Act ibid. The Institute of Blue Pottery Development Multan is one such amongst others.
That Government of Punjab vide its Notification dated 21.04.2010 upgraded clerical posts of TEVTA contract employees.
Respondents in all the three petitions submitted applications for up-gradation from BS-11 to BS-14 in pursuance of Notification of Govt. Of Punjab dated 23.11.2009. Applications were rejected by the petitioner for the reason that those did not fall in Notification dated 21.04.2010. Thereafter applications were re-submitted but those were also declined.
Aggrieved against the rejection of applications for up gradation, respondents sent grievance notices on 09.12.2011 to the petitioner which were not responded, leading to filing of grievance petitions before Labour Court No. 9, Multan.
Petitioner put in appearance but after a few dates of hearings did not pursue the matter and was declared ex parte. An application for setting aside ex-parte order was moved but that too was not prosecuted which led to its dismissal. Thereafter ex-parte evidence of the respondents was recorded on 10.09.2012. Petitioner failed to produce evidence, the evidence led by respondents went un-rebutted, Punjab Labour Court No. 9 accepted grievance petitions of the respondents vide order dated 24.09.2012.
Appeals against the said judgments dated 24.09.2012 were filed with the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No. II, Multan which were also dismissed through a single judgment on the point of limitation, being barred by time.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly emphasized that the Institute of Blue Pottery Development, Multan was established with the object to revive the old Muslim Technology of Blue Pottery in the field of ceramics and to produce skilled workers. It provides training to students for one year duration. It also provides free of cost job training to students who are paid a monthly stipend of Rs.1500 to Rs.3000/-. It was further argued that respondents were not workmen as defined under the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 or under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act 2010, therefore, Labour Court (Respondent No. 2) had no jurisdiction to entertain their grievance petitions. Reliance was placed on the judgments reported as Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry , Karachi versus Sindh Labour Court No. V. Karachi and others (2012 PLC 251 Supreme Court of Pakistan); Board of Governors Aitchison College, Lahore versus Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (2001 SCMR) 1928); KG. Old Principal, Christian Technical Training Centre, Gujranwala versus Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court, Northern Zone and six others (PLD 1976 Lahore 1097)
5. Conversely, it was argued that appeals filed before Labour Appellate Tribunal No. II, Multan (Respondent No. 3) were barred by one month and 13 days; that the application seeking condonation of delay did not provide justifiable grounds for its condonation. Reliance placed on the judgment reported as Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax vs. Messrs Hameed Model Industries (Pvt.) and mother (2000 SCMR 648) and Reel khan versus Manager operation established electric Supply Corporation WAPDA and others 2011 'MR P76 It was further argued that another employee a :lately Muhammad jabhran' was up-graded tram grade-11 to grade 14 which vas proved through Ex.P-1t) the document went un-rebutted hy t is petitioner Respondents being similarly placed were discriminated, teliance was placed on the case law cited as Abid Hussain and .5 others versus Secretary I() Government of the Purdah, Finance Department. Iril Secretarial Lahore and 5 others 12012 PLO CS 26) and azad Khan and others versus Chief Commissioner and others (2012 PLCC.S) 87).
6. Arguments heard, Available record perused.
7. There is no denying the fact that appeals before the Punjab labour Appellate Tribunal No.
11. Multan were filed with an inordinate delay of one month and 13-days, application -seeking condonation was filed, but no plausible reasons were assigned therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted with the question. Of limitation could not satisfy the Court for inordinate delay in tiling of appeals.
The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not attracted to the facts of the case, petitioner neither cross-examined the witnesses produced by the respondents nor produced any evidence in support of their pleadings. The evidence produced by the respondents went un-rebutted.
8. Exh.P-10 regarding up-gradation of similarly placed employee was proved while respondents were discriminated although similarly placed.
9. The spirit and object of Notifications dated 23.11.2009 and 21.04.2010 was meant to benefit the employees covered there-under and not to exclude the persons involved in the same nature of work. Under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistani 1973, similarly placed persons are to be treated alike.
10. The dictates and rule of good governance that when benefit was granted to one employee it should be passed on to the respondents who were equally eligible and qualified for same!
Treatment in terms, of the afore-referred notifications.
In view of the above, all the three writ petitions being devoid of merits are dismissed.