ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---The petitioners, ex-employees of United Bank Limited (respondent No. 1), who were retired much before its privatization on 19.10.2002, have filed this civil petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court ? Sindh, Karachi dated 20.3.2013, whereby their Constitution Petition No. 2781 of 2010, seeking directions against respondent No. 1 for increase in their pension, was disposed of, leaving it open for them to avail their remedy as may be appropriate, and available to them as per law.
2. In few words, the grievance of the petitioners is that after their retirement during the year 1991 to 2000, their pension has not been increased by the respondent No. 1, though as per terms of privatization agreement dated 19.10.2002 ("the agreement") they are entitled for such benefit.
3. Before the High Court of Sindh, the petitioners relied upon clause 5.2 of the agreement, which, according to them, bound the new management of respondent No. I to protect the interest of its employees/staff members, including its retired employees like them.
4. Conversely, the stance of respondent No. 1 before the High Court was that clause 5.2 of the agreement is not applicable to the case of petitioners, as they were retired in the years 1991, 1996, 1998 and 2000, while it deals only with the "existing employees/staff", who were in their service at the time of the agreement/privatization. Further, the respondent No. I have no statutory rules, therefore, the petitioners could not invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
5. The learned Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the Constitution Petition of the petitioners with the following observations: "Having heard the contentions of Mr. Islam learned counsel for the petitioners, he was not able to point out any statutory instrument whereby the terminal benefits could be revised at par with the benefits of the government employee except clause 5.2 as reproduced above, which in our opinion would not extend any benefit to the petitioner, therefore, in our opinion petition is misdirected and is accordingly disposed of, leaving the petitioner to avail the remedy as may be applicable and available to them as per law."
6. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Akhtar Ali Mehmood, learned ASC for the petitioners and Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani. Learned ASC for the respondent. The perusal of material placed on record reveals that the retirement of the petitioners No. 1, 2 & 4 and the deceased husband of petitioner No. 3 had taken place during the period 1991 to 2000, much prior to the privatization of respondent No. I on 19.10.2002. Further the contents of the agreement, which is an admitted document, reveal that through its clause 5.2, for a limited period of one year some protection was extended as regards the benefits and facilities enjoyed by the existing employees/staff of respondent No, 1, who were in their service at the time of entering into the agreement. This fact is quite evident from the language of the said clause, which reads thus:--- "5.2. The purchaser shall comply with the following conditions in relation to the existing employees/staff members of UBL:--- (a)All existing benefits and facilities being enjoyed by the employees and staff members of UBL (whether in the executive, managerial, officers, workmen employee categories) shall not be changed, varied or discontinued to the detriment of the staff members and employees by the Purchaser for a minimum period of (1) one year from the Completion Date and thereafter only in accordance with the provisions of applicable laws and contracts of such employees and staff members.
(b)The existing employees and staff members of UBL (whether in the executive, managerial, officers, workmen employee categories) shall not for a period of minimum (1) one year from the Completion Date, be terminated, laid-off, retrenched or made to resign from the services of UBL except by way of dismissal on account of misconduct within the meaning of the Service Rules of UBL and/or applicable laws.
(c) Subject to sub-clause (a) above, the existing Service Rules of UBL will not be modified to the detriment of the existing staff members and employees for a period of at least one year from the Completion Date.
(d) Nothing contained in sub-clauses (a), (b) or (c) above shall restrict or be construed as restricting the right of UBL or the Purchaser to offer a scheme of voluntary retirement or golden handshake to the existing employees Of UBL.,
(e) Except and to the extent specified in this Clause 5.2 it is clarified that nothing contained in this Agreement including without limitation this Clause, shall affect any other right or power of UBL in respect of the employees and staff members of UBL under the law. (underlining provided by us for emphasis).
7. It therefore goes without much deliberations that the scheme of privatization in terms of the agreement had not covered/protected the claim of pensionary benefits of employees of respondent No, 1, who had retired during the period before its privatization under the agreement dated 19.10.2002, which remained unchallenged.
8. On humanitarian ground, one may have sympathy with the petitioners for their meager pensionary benefits, during these days of high cost of living, but this fact alone is not sufficient to make them entitle for the relief, which, according to them, was extended to some retired employees of State Bank of Pakistan and National Bank of Pakistan etc., who had opted to implement the Government of Pakistan letter No, 17(9)1-FX1/77, dated 30.).1.1997. Admittedly, the spirit of clause 5.2 (supra) was only to provide protection to the existing employees/staff of respondent No 1 for a minimum period of one year, whereafter the respondent No, 1 was free to make its own arrangements for dealing with its employees and staff. Moreover, it is also an admitted position from the record that respondent No, 1 is a private Bank having no statutory rules, therefore, the forum chosen by the petitioners by filing petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was also not well-advised to entertain their grievance, as rightly held in the impugned judgment
9. The upshot of above discussion is that leave is refused and this petition is dismissed.
Leave Refused/Service Tribunal Upheld.