JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AQIL MIRZA, J. - This order shall- dispose of the following Intra Court Appeals, as identical questions of law and facts are involved therein:-
(i) ICA No. 170/95, Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore v. Imtiaz Hussain Kazmi.
(ii). ICA No. 171/95, Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore v. Shoukat Ali.
(iii) ICA No. 172/95, Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore v. Zahid Razzaq.
(iv) ICA No. 173/95, Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore v. Muhammad Ayub Zahid.
(v) ICA No. 205/95, Metropolitan Corporation Lahore v. Sardar Ali.
2. Four writ petitions forming subject-matter of the first four intra Court appeals referred to above, were decided by one consolidated judgment dated :; 20.3.1995 passed in Writ Petition No. 10637/94 while the last mentioned Intra Court appeal was decided, subsequently'by judgment dated 11.4.1995. The respondents in these appeals are the school teachers who were appointed under the orders of Mayor, Metropolitan Corporation Lahore, respectively on 4.2.1993, 29.12.1992, 14.1.1992, 14.12.1991 and 4.*10.1991. Since after their appointments they have been performing their duties as school teachers under the appellant Metropolitan Corporation. Separate writ petitions were filed by the respondents by raising Similar grievance that the salary has not been paid by the appellant to them despite the fact that they are continuously performing their duties as school teachers. Before the learned Single Judge it as stated on behalf of the appellant that the salaries of the respondents have been withheld because their appointments were conditional and "till the lifting of the ban the salaries could not be paid." It was further stated that the case for regularization of their appointments had been sent to the Government of the Punjab but so far no effective step has been taken in the matter by the Government.
3. The learned Single Judge .Accepted -the writ petitions filed by the respondents on the ground that they having been allowed to work and perform their duties as teachers in the schools run by the Metropolitan Corporation without any hindrance, their salaries cannot be withheld. Resultantly, the appellant was directed to pay the salaries to the respondents before the end of April, 1995.
4. The first four of the above-mentioned intra Court appeals, namely, I. C.A. No. 170/95, I.C.A. 171/95, I.C.A. No. 172/95 am1 I.C.A. No. 173/95 are barred by time by ten days, as per calculation made by the office. The applications for condonation of delay (C.M.No. 2 of 1995 in each case) have been separately made on the averments "that no official copy and information has been made available to the office of the Administrator, Metropolitan Corporation Lahore" and that "the delay is not intentional." The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, however, reflects a different factual position. The impugned judgment was passed in open Court in the presence of the Legal Advisor of the M.C.L., the Chief Corporation Officer, the Assistant Education Officer and the Superintendent General of the M.C.L. Therefore, it cannot be urged on behalf of the appellant Corporation that the impugned order was not in the knowledge of the functionaries of the Corporation. The applications for condonation of delay do not reflect the date on which the factum of passing of the impugned order came to the knowledge of the Administrator of the M.C.L. In these circumstances, no sufficient cause cart be said to have been shown for not preferring the appeals within the prescribed period of limitation, and hence the applications for coronation of delay in all the four appeals are dismissed. Resultantly, ail the four aforesaid appeals are dismissed in limine, being barred by limitation. The fifth ICA No. 205/95 though filed within the period of limitation, is liable to be dismissed on merits for the reasons hereinafter appearing. - 5. It is not denied on behalf of the Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore that the respondents are performing their duties as school teachers for the last several years in pursuance of letters of appointment duly issued by the competent Authority. So long as an employee remains in service and performs his duty, it is not open to an employer to withhold his salary. This subject has been beautifully discussed by our learned brother Sharif Hussain Bokhari, J. In Mst. Zaibun Nisa i\ Government of Punjab (PLJ 1995 Lahore 3%) as under;- "As observed, the petitioner has been performing duties as teachers in the school maintained and controlled by the respondents, she is, therefore, entitled to full emoluments in her grade and pay scale with all the admissible allowances, as.4|p'e is no provision, neither the concept for service without salary under the relevant law. Under Section 43 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) Local Council may, on prescribed terms and conditions employ such servant as are necessary for the efficient performance of its functions and under Section 46 ibid, Government may by Rules prescribe scale or grade of pay for the servants of Local Councils. The prescribed rules are the "Punjab Municipal Committees Service Rules, 1969" as adopted under the * said Ordinance.'
The present situation, where the petitioner, a Local Council servant, is made to work without payment of salary for more then two years is against Islam which envisages payment of wages before sweat of toil is dried up. The performance of duties under these circumstances may also amount to forced labour which is forbidden by our Constitution, Article 11 whereof states in unequivocal terms that "All forms of forced ' ur and traffic in human beings are prohibited."
In terms of Altaic 29 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the respondents are duty bound to act in accordance with die Principles of Policy set out in Chapter 2, Part II of the Constitution insofar as they relate to their functions. These principles include equitable adjustment of rights between employers and employees, to provide for all citizens facilities for work and adequate livelihood, to provide for all persons employed in the service of Pakistan or otherwise Social Security, to provide basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing, housing, education and medical relief, for all such citizens, irrespective of sex, caste, creed, or race, as are permanently or temporarily unable to earn their livelihood on account of infirmity, sickness or unemployment. The respondents, by not paying salary to the petitioner for the past more than two years have acted contrary to these. Principles of Policy. They exploited the situation and denied to the petitioner her valuable right to remuneration according to her grade which is also in violation of Article 3 of the^ Constitution, which casts duty on the State to eliminate all forms of exploitation and gradual fulliiment of the fundamental principle, from each according to his ability, to each according to his work."
6. While respectfully agreeing with the afore-quoted observations of Sharif Hussain Rokhari, J. We are further of the view that provisions of Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution are also invocable in the special circumstances of these cases. Article 9 of the Constitution guarantees protection to life as a Fundamental right. This Article reads as follows: "No person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law In the instant case, it can be legitimately said that the right to life of the respondents employees of the Metropolitan Corporation stands seriously jeopardized. If an employce/servant is not paid his salary/wages for the work done by him for his employer, he is not expected to live a proper life. If he does not get his salary then how can he sustain himself and his family members. Even if he does not starve and manages to keep his soul and body intact, his on. Hfe and those of his dependent members of the family are bound to heavily suffer m quality. The life as contemplated by Article 9 does not merely mean a vegetative life but it also includes a qualitative life which should ensure enjoyment of such other amenities and facilities as are enjoyed by a person born in a civilised society. The term life' used in Article 9 of the Constitution has been used in a wider sense, which means that a man should not be able only to sustain life but to enjoy it as well.
7. Similarly Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees dignity of man is contravened when an employee/servant is denied his right to receive his salary/wages by him. Article 14, inter alia, commands "the dignity of man and. Subject to law, the privacy of home, shall be inviolable." A man who is denied the fruit of the labour and work done by him is bound to live in a manner which will deprive him of his dignity. In order to save from starvation and kept himself alive, such a person will have to steal, beg or borrow. A person who is forced to do any such things must suffer in dignity. Similarly, to kept his dignity intact he must enjoy facilities and amenities of life.Of modest level according to his station in life. The respondents in these cases are the school teachers. By virtue of their status in Society arid requirement of their office they need clean clothings. They also require health care, shelter and food for themselves and their families. For all these things they ought to get their monthly salary in lieu of the duties they have been performing by teaching children in the school. The total effect of'non-payment of salaries to the Respondents is that they are suffering in honour and dignity and their quality of life is also adversely affected, the hence fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution stand denied to them. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shahla Zia v. Wap.La (PLD 1994 SC 693) made the following observations with regard to Article 9 of the Constitution:- "The word 'life' is very significant as it covers all facts of human existence. The word 'life' has not sheen defined in the Const itut ion-out it does not mean nor can be restricted only to the vegetative or animal life or mere existence from conception to death. Life includes all such amenities and facilities which a person born in a free country is entitled to enjoy with dignity, legally and constitutionally." ,
8. With reference to the combined effect of Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shahla Zia (supra) made the following observations:--'
"Under our Constitution Article 14 provides that the dignity of man and subject to law, the privacy of home shall be inviolable, The fundamental right to privacy and protect the dignity of man under Article 14 is unparalleled and could be found only in few Constitutions of the world. The Constitution guarantees the dignity of man and also right to life under Article 9 and if both are read together, question will arise whether a person can be said to have dignity of man if his right to life is below their necessity life without proper food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, clean atmosphere and unpolluted environment. Such questions will arise for consideration which can be dilated upon in more detail in a proper proceeding involved in such specific questions."
9. We have considered the circumstances involved in the instant cases viz. That the respondents have been for years together denied their lawful right to receive salaries, although they are being made to perform their duties as school teachers without hindrance; and find that these cases to provide apt example of contravention of the fundamental rights provided by Articles 9 and 14 of our Constitution.
10. The submission made on behalf of the appellant Metropolitan Corporation, that, the salaries have not been paid to the respondent school teachers because of the ban on recruitments and failure of the Punjab Government to regularize the appointments despite several requests in that behalf, may now be attended to. Even if sanction of the Provincial Government was required for the purpose of regularisation of the appointments of the respondents who are continuously performing their duties for the past several years,'the same be presumed to have been accorded in the absence of specific refusal by the Punjab Government to regularise the appointments in question. When the respondents are in service without hindrance and the concerned functionaries of the Governments being cognizant of this fact have not specifically decided to refuse regularisation ot she appointments, it can legitimately be presumed that they have no objection to (heir regularisation of these appointments. If they had intended to refuse the regularisation they could have taken a positive decision in that behalf within a reasonable period of time. That being not done, it will have to be presumed that the Government has no objection to the appointments of the respondents as school teachers in the Metropolitan Corporation. On this ground the Metropolitan Corporation has neither legal nor moral basis for withholding the salaries of low paid school teachers for several years. To say the least, it was callous on the pan of the functionaries of the Metropolitan Corporation to have adopted an unreasonable technical excuse for withholding the salaries of the respondents. It may be clarified here that the presumption we have raised is - peculiar to the circumstances of the cases in hand and it is not of general application nor should it be a precedent or other cases.
11. Before parting with this case it may be observed that salary is no longer a bounty of the State.
The English theory of the bounty of the State was exploded . Long ago by our Supreme Court in Pakistan through General Manager, P.W.R., Lahore v. Mrs. A.V.
Issacs (PLD 1970 SC 415). Salaries/wages are the rightful dues which the employees/servants must get from the employers without delay.
12. For what has been discussed above, ICA No. 205 of 1995 also stands dismissed in limine. In addition to the ground of limitation, the first four appeals are also liable to be dismissed on merits, as discussed above,
13. The salaries of the respondent school teachers have not been paid on account of suspension of the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge, on the motion of the Metropolitan Corporation in the above appeals. Therefore, it I P. V. R. CVC. 287 #tbs I VOI'. XVI #to {Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, J) .
Directed that the Administrator of the Metropolitan Corporation Lahore shall pay the salaries and other admissible allowances to the respondents in all the five appeals with all despatch. To be more precise, the salaries for the months of January to April, 19% shall be paid before 10th of May, 19% while the remaining* arrears shall be paid by 30th of June, 1996.