Through this petition order dated 24.09.2 019 passed by Chairman TEVT A Punjab Lahore/Respondent No. 2 has been assailed, by virtue of which, an application seeking regularization in service filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
2.Facts giving rise to the present petition are that petitioners were employed on different posts by the respondent- TEVT A in the year 2007, 2013 and 2014. respectively as daily wagers. It was their case that due. to efflux of time, keeping in view the notifications issued by the Government of Punjab and judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, they are entitled to regularization and in this regard, they moved applications before Respondent No. 2, which remained undecided whereupon they filed Writ Petitio n No. 9081 of 2018 in which a direction was issued to Respondent No .2 to decide the applications filed by the petitioners qua their regularization whereupon, through the impugned order regularization has been refused, therefore, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Respondent No. 2 erred in law in not considering the case of the petitioners keeping in view the notifications issued by the Government of Punjab and the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding regularization of daily wagers.
4. Replying to the above, learned counsel for the respondents as well as the learn ed Law Officer, while relying on judgments reported as Pakistan Airline Pilots Association and others v. Pakistan International Airline and another (2019 SCMR 278), Abdul Wahab and others v. HBL and others (2013 SCMR 1383 ), Pakistan International Airline Corporation and others v. Tanweer-ur-Rehman and others (PLD 2010 SC 676), Dr. Tahir Masud v. Amjad Ali Khan and 4 others (2019 PLC (CS) 1167) and two unreported orders passed in ICA. No. 217168 of 2018 titled Nauman Oaiser v. G.O.P ., etc and W.P. No. 24925 of 2015 titled Lt. Col. (R) Hamid Ghani Anjum v. Government of the Punjab, etc. submit that since terms and conditions of service of the petitioners are governed by non-statutory rules, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. A bare perusal of the impugned order would show that no independent reasons have been given by Respondent No. 2 while passing the same. The mains tay of the impugned order is that since Labour Laws are not applicable to the employees of respondents TEVT A, therefore, petitioners are not entitled to be considered for regularization, however , the said functionary has lost sight of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan through Chairman and another vs. Muhammad Sajid and others (2019 SCMR 233) & Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, DG Khan and another vs. Muhammad Altaf and another (2018 SCMR 325) which lay down principles qua regularization of daily wagers.
7. As regards the argument of the learne d counsels for the 'respondents that since the services of the petitioners are governed by non-statutory rules, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable, the same is not tenable in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reports as Messrs State Oil Company Limited v. Bakht Siddique and others (2018 SCMR 1181) through which, it has been held that since regularization is not part of terms and conditions of service of an employee, thus, in spite of the fact that the services of the employees are governed by non-statutory rules, this Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issue.
8. As regards the judgments-cited by the learned counsels for the respondents the same being outcome of different facts and circumstances are not applicable to the case in hand being distinguishable.
9. In view of the above, this petition is allowed as a sequel to which, the impugned order is set aside resultantly , the applications filed by the petitioners qua their regularization shall be deemed to be pending before Respondent No. 2 who shall re-decide the same keeping in view the afore-referred judgments etc, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and shall pass a speaking order .