ABDUL SATTAR, J.--- This ICA filed under Section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 seeks to challenge the judgment dated 26.5.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge-in Chambers whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants employed with respondents Corporation in different grades through the decided writ petition voiced grievance that under the instructions of Government of Pakistan, Finance Division dated 27.12.2010 communicated through the Ministry of Commerce, the appellants were extended grant of Ad hoc Allowance, 2010 at the rate of 50% of Basic Pay and in pursuance of that the respondents Corporation issued a Circular letter dated 30.12.2010 for payment of said allowance to the officers as well as unionized staff and since then they were getting this allowance. In the year 2011-2012 a Charter of Demand was signed by the respondents Corporation and State Life Insurance Employees Federation of Pakistan by which the above said Ad hoc Allowance was withdrawn by the respondents Corporation. Terming the said act of the respondents Corporation as absolutely illegal, against the Constitution, and based on mala fide in the background that all the executive officers/officials were still deriving the above benefit, the appellants thus sought the declaration to the above effect and violative of equality clause of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and prayed for acceptance of the writ petition and restraining the respondents Corporation from recovering the already paid Ad hoc Allowance from the appellants. The writ petition was contested from the respondents' side on the main plea that benefit of 50% Ad hoc Allowance admissible to the employees of the respondents Corporation was subject to approval of the Board of Directors of the respondents Corporation.
Additionally the benefit of Ad hoc Allowance was extended to the employees under an agreement between the Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) and the respondents Corporation in the year 2009- 2010 under certain terms and conditions. In the said background, after the announcement of grant of Ad hoc Allowance at the rate of 50% by the Federal Government, the respondents Corporation was approached by the General Secretary of Collective Bargaining Agent with a request to grant 50% allowance additionally as pre-payment subject to filing of undertaking of every employee.
Maintainability of the writ petition was also questioned as the appellants had alternate remedy to approach National Industrial Relations Commission under Industrial Relations Act, 2012. After hearing arguments of the two sides, the learned Single Judge-in-Chambers dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this ICA.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge-in-Chambers is against law and facts as the grievance of the appellants was not considered in its true perspective; that the case of the appellants was implementation of Government policy and case of violation of fundamental rights, for which, this Court has ample powers and jurisdiction. Further argued that the learned Single Judge-in-Chambers ignored a material fact that the appellants were permanent employees of respondents Corporation governed by Statutory Rules and in the light of several judgments quoted before the learned Single Judge-in-Chambers, it was argued that the writ petition was competent before the said Court.
Further argued that this was also case of principle of Locus Potentiate as the appellants had derived fiscal benefit in a lawful manner. Furthermore, it was a case of pure discrimination as the respondents Corporation was still extending the 50% Ad hoc Allowance to its executive staff. It has been thus prayed that after allowing the ICA, writ petition be accepted. Reliance placed on Mirza Muhammad Iqbal and others v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1999 Lahore 109), Muhammad Yousaf v. Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment Punjab, Lahore and 5 others (PLD 2004 Lahore 284), Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through Chairman and others v. Samina Masood and others (PLD 2005 SC 831) and Dr. Muhammad Tahir Achakzai and others v. Government of Balochistan and others (1999 SCMR 1689).
4.The learned counsel for the respondents Corporation has vehemently opposed the ICA by supporting the impugned judgment and has also placed reliance on Syed Arshad Ali and others v.
Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. and others (2008 SCMR 314) and Muhammad Kashif v.
Messrs Karachi Dock Labour Board through Chairperson and another (2013 PLC 329).
5.Arguments heard. Record perused.
6.On perusal of contents of the writ petition filed by the appellants, it is found that the complete background, in which the appellants were extended 50% Ad hoc Allowance of the basic pay by the respondents Corporation was not given in it. In their written reply the respondents Corporation filled the wanting gap by explaining that Ad hoc relief of 50% was extended to the appellants staff conditionally as prepayment of forthcoming Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) agreement 2011- 2012, which was also adjustable. It was noted in the written reply that after the announcement by the Federal Government in the year 2010 for grant of Ad hoc Allowance @ 50% of the Basic pay to its employees the then CBA through its Secretary General approached the Management of respondents Corporation and urged to extend said allowance conditionally as pre-payment subject to filing of exclusive undertaking of every employee individually. Request' of the CBA was sympathetically considered by the Management and the same was referred to Board of Directors in its 214th meeting held on 07.09.2010.The said Board of Directors conditionally allowed the request of the CBA in the following terms: The Ad hoc allowance will be considered as a prepayment and would be adjustable/recoverable against the increase that would be given against forthcoming CBA agreement negotiation, the charter of which would be submitter in the end of 2010 and CBA agreement would be effective for the year 2011-2012"
Justification for continuance of the above referred allowance to the officers of the Corporation was also explained in written reply. It is not the case of the appellants that CBA was not competent to make any settlement' with the Management of respondents Corporation. If the appellants had any grievance regarding the mis-working or legitimacy of the CBA they are free to agitate their grievance before NIRC.
7. Record of the decided writ petition also includes the undertaking given by the employees including the appellants accepting the decision taken in 214th meeting of Board of Directors held on 07.09.2010 regarding Ad hoc Allowance payable to unionized staff @ 50% of basic pay payable from 1st July, 2010. In the said undertaking, the employees undertook that amount received by them shall be recovered/adjusted from them from the final payment payable in the light of the forthcoming CBA agreement 2011. The employees also undertook to abide by all terms and conditions set by the Management in this regard and shall not approach any forum/court of law in case of any dispute. In the light of above noted written undertakings given by the employees/appellants, the appellants have remedy to approach the relevant forum for resolution of their grievance, if any. In this background, it was unjustified on their part to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of this court. We have seen the case law relied by their learned counsel found to be on different set of facts and circumstances not applicable to the instant case.
8.In view of above no ground for interference has been made out in the order passed by learned Single Judge-in-Chambers. This appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.