' This is a petition under section 34 of the I.R.O., 1969 wherein the petitioners are the members/office-bearers of the Pakistan Telecommunication Lines Staff Union of the Establishment of P.T.C. Which is also the C.B.A. Of the Establishment. It was contended by the petitioners that the petitioners have vested right under the SRO-1145(I)/90 published in the Gazette of Pakistan dated 13-9-1990 wherein the petitioner have been allowed a quota of 60% by promotion for filling of the posts of Data Control Assistant (BPS-14) whereas the respondents establishment, in utter disregard to the said lawful rights of the petitioner, is bent upon recruiting 100% posts of Data Control Assistant (BPS-14) by initial appointment and prayer was sought that directions be issued to the respondents not to fill in 60% vacancy of Data Control Assistant and keep them in reserve for appointment by promotion from amongst the Key Punch Operator (BPS-10).
2. The petition was strongly contested by the respondents by way of filing of written statement and rejoinder etc. Wherein certain preliminary legal objections as to the maintainability of the petition were also raised.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the documents on record.
' The respondent has raised objections that the petition is not maintainable under section 34 of the I.R.O., 1969 as the petitioners are neither the employer nor are C.BA. Of the establishment therefore, are not allowed to invoke the provision of section 34 of the I.R.O., 1969. The present petitioners are the members and office-bearers of the Regional Bodies of the union i,e, Pakistan Telecommunication Lines Staff Union which is admittedly the C.BA. In the Establishment but it is evident from the petition that it has not been filed through the said union which is enjoining the status of the C.BA. Nor through its General Secretary who is authorised under the constitution of the said union to sue or to be sued. The petitioners have filed this joint petition in their individual capacity and not as representative of the C.BA. For convenience the provision of section 34 are reproduced herein below:-- "Application to Labour Court.---Any C.BA. Or any employer may apply to the Labour Court for the enforcement of any right guaranteed secured to it or him by or under any law or any award of settlement."
' After perusal of the above provision it is very much clear that remedy available under the abovementioned section can only be invoked by the C.BA. Only and such rights which are exclusively enjoyed by the C.B.A. Or the employer, cannot be extended to the members of the union which is a C.BA. Or even it cannot be automatically extended to the office-bearers of the Regional Bodies of the C.BA. In this behalf I have already quoted the observation of Hon'able Supreme Court in the case titled as Karachi Pipe Mills Employees Union Versus Karachi Pipe Mills Limited, Karachi reported in SCMR 1992 page 36, reference is also made to the judgment titled as Habib Bank Limited Employees Federation v. HBL etc. Reported in 1995 PLC 414. Therefore, I am of the view that the present petition is not maintainable under the provisions of section 34 of the I.R.O., 1969.
5. The next objection is that the present petitioners are Government servants and their terms and conditions of service are also protected as Civil Servants under the provision of section 9 of the P.T.C. Act, 1991, therefore, in view of the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioners can only invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal, is well -founded. Although the establishment of P.T.C. Is a Corporation but the rights and liabilities of the petitioners, being in service at the time of conversion of the establishment of T & T into a corporation were protected by section 9 of P.T.C. Act, 1991, therefore, the petitioners are civil servants within the meaning of Civil Servants Act, 1973 read with Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and, therefore, have got not no right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission as a workmen. Reference can be made to the case titled as Faqir Muhammad etc. v. The Director of National Saving Centre etc. Reported in PLD 1992 SC 127 and 1992 PLC 163. The application of the definition of Civil Servants upon the present petitioners evident from the Notification S.R.O. No, 1145(1)/90, dated 13-9-1990 Annexure 'C' referred, also reproduced hereinbelow. In this score also I hold the petition without jurisdiction and not maintainable.
6. Adverting to the merits of the case it is pertinent to reproduce the contents of eligibility for the appointment by promotion of the present petitioners for the post of Data Control Assistant (BPS-14) in the quota of 60% by promotion.
' SRO. 1145 (I) 90.---In pursuance of sub-rule (2) of rule 3 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973...."
METHOD OF APPOINTMENT ' Initial all the posts shall be filled in by in trial appointment and subsequently by the following method:- S. No.Name of Post By promotionBy initial appointment 1 2 3 4
1. Data Control Asstt. (PBS-14)60% 40%
2. Key Punch Operator (BPS-10) 100% Provided that if no suitable person is available for promotion the post reserved for promotion shall be filed by initial appointment and failing that by transfer CONDITION FOR PROMOTION Promotion to the posts in Column 1 below shall be made on senioritycum-fitness basis from amongst the persons who hold the posts specified in Column 2 on a regular basis and possess the qualifications and experience prescribed in Column 3.
Name and Basic Pay Scale of the PostPerson eligibleConditions of eligibility 1 2 3 Data Control Assistant(BPS-14) KPO (BPS-10)5 years service as Key Punch Operator BPS-10
7. After going through the conditions of eligibility for such promotion it is clear that the petitioner should have a service as Key Punch Operator (BPS-10) for a period of 5 years whereas admittedly the petitioners do not have completed the service of five years as Key Punch Operator in BPS-M.
Therefore, very simply the petition itself is premature as yet the petitioners have got no right of promotion being not eligible to be considered for such promotion in BPS-14 as Data Control Assistant against the quota of 60% by promotion. On this score also I hold the petition premature and not maintainable.
8. As a result of the above discussion the petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.