' IMAM ALI KAZI, J.--The petitioners by this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, are seeking a declaration that the order dated 8-7-1982 passed in Case No, 18(162)/81 by the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad sitting as the Authorised Officer for the purpose of deciding applications under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 be declared to have been passed by him without any lawful authority with a direction that he may decide the application of the petitioners afresh in accordance with law.
2. The facts briefly stated in the petition are that the petitioners alongwith others were employed by M/s. Sui Gas Transmission Company, the respondent No,1 herein as Drivers/Mobile Plant Operators to work on their project known as Quetta Natural Gas Pipe Line Project (QPL) for laying natural gas pipe line from Shikarpur to Quetta. This project was undertaken by the said respondent as the agents of the Government of Pakistan under an agency agreement dated 25-10-1981.
3. The petitioners were earlier employed by the said company (respondent No,1) for its Indus Right Bank Project in the year 1978 and were retrenched after the completion of that project. The petitioners were then employed by the said company in another project for laying an oil pipe line from Karachi to Shikarpur for M/s. Pak Arab Refinery (PARCO) and on completion of the project they were retrenched in December, 1980. While the petitioners were employed by the respondent for the PARCO Project, they were paid allowances and other benefits and facilities which according to the petitioners were more beneficial than the wages offered to them for being employed to carry out the project, Quetta Natural Gas Pipe Line Project (QPL).
4. As the petitioners were offered less favourable wages, allowances etc. Than what they were receiving previously when they were retrenched by the respondent No,1 on completion of PARCO Project they filed an application under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance)
Act, 1952 before the Specified Authority under the said Act to regulate their terms and conditions of their employment. They complained that they were not given conveyance allowance, Karachi Compensatory allowance, City Clinic allowance, maintenance allowance, leave fare assistance, tea allowance and other benefits.
5. The application of the petitioners before the Specified Authority was resisted by respondent No,1, Sui Gas Transmission Company, on the following grounds:
(i) That the applicants were employed for a project of the Government of Pakistan and the Company was under no legal obligation to offer them re-employment as retrenched workers in terms of Standing Order No,14 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
(ii) Alternatively, it was contended that in case the aforesaid Standing Orders applied the re- employment of the applicants was in fact a fresh employment and the company was not under obligation to extend to them same benefits as were allowed to them on the previous PARCO Project.
(iii) That wages etc. Offered to them were in the nature of a package deal and were substantially of the same value as was offered to them previously.
6. The petitioners examined evidence in support of their contention and the Specified Authority after hearing the parties concluded that Sui Gas Trasmission Company Limited, the respondent No,1 herein, were employers of the petitioners; and that Standing Order No,14 was attracted in their case, which made obligatory for them to offer re-employment to workmen retrenched within a period of twelve months. The Specified Authority relying on the interpretation of Standing Order No,14 given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Pakistan International Airlines v.
Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1980 PLC 975 that Standing Order No,14 entitles the retrenched workmen to a right to offer themselves for re-employment as an option to rejoin service of their employer while the employer is under an obligation to give an opportunity to the retrenched workman to work in the job which may either be of permanent or temporary nature. It further clarifies that the re-employment in such cases was a fresh employment and it did not amount to reinstatement entitling them to the benefits of previous employment. Reliance was also placed on the case of Iqbal Ahmed v. IInd Sindh Labour Court, Karachi and another 1980 PLC 316 which clarifies that right of re-employment under Standing Order No,14 was not an absolute one.
The contentions of the applicants/petitioners were, therefore repelled by the Specified Authority and ultimately their application was dismissed.
7. Mr. All Amjad, learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the petitioners were in fact engaged by the said respondents that worked as a construction company attracting the provisions of Standing Order No,14-A and not Standing Order No,14. According to him, the Specified Authority had, therefore, committed an error of its jurisdiction amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.
8. The admitted position in the case is that the petitioners before us were engaged by the Sui Gas Transmission Company Limited, the respondent No,1 herein, in connection with the project for establishing a gas pipe line. The said respondents are clearly a gas organization and employees under them are covered by the provisions of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 and the Standing Order No,14 is attracted in their case. Nothing has been shown to enable this Court to record a finding that respondent No,1 are a construction company. No such ground seems to have been taken by the petitioners before the Specified Authority. The petitioners on that ground too cannot now agitate such a plea before this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
9. No other ground was urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the petition and in view of above position, we had by our short order passed on 12-4-1989 dismissed the petition, while above are the reasons for the said order.