' The petitioner, who is a disabled person and possesses educational qualification of M.Sc. In Statistics from the University of the Punjab, Lahore, applied to the respondents for the job of Assistant against the disabled persons quota in response to the advertisement which appeared in the daily 'Jang', Lahore dated 27-10-1994. The respondents held the examination for these posts which was also qualified by the petitioner; still he was not appointed by the respondents, hence the present writ petition. Report and parawise comments were called for and filed by the respondents.
This petition was admitted to regular hearing on 27-10-1996 when amended writ petition was filed.
Thereafter he written statement was also filed by respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents-Company has raised preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of this Court to hear this petition on the plea that the Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the company') being a public limited company, is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution. This question was examined by me in "Muhammad Ilyas v. M.D." (Writ Petition No, 5546 of 1997) (1998 CLC 600) wherein I took the following view, which I am not persuaded to change:-- "In the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Central Board of Revenue v. S.I.T.E. "
(PLD 1985 SC 97), on lifting the veil of incorporation it becomes clear that the business and affairs of the Company are being controlled by the Government of Pakistan and the Company itself is dealing with the supply of the Gas, essential for the Industry, business and domestic consumption, therefore, performs functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation and as such is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court."
3. Learned counsel for the respondents-Company raised another legal objection against the competency of this petition on the strength of sections 10 and 11 of the Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') and submits that although under section 10 of this Ordinance the Company ought to have employed disabled persons equal to 1% of the total number of persons employed therein, yet the Company could and has absolved itself of this liability by complying with section 11 of the Ordinance on payment to the Fund, the requisite amount each month, therefore, section 10 (ibid) is not violated.
He thus submits that since the company has not violated any law, no direction can issue to them under Article 199 of the Constitution.
4. On one of the previous dates of hearing it was admitted by the respondents-Company that 23 vacancies which are reserved for disabled persons in accordance with section 10 of the said Ordinance, exist but were not filled due to the ban imposed by the Government against the recruitment. In this connection the letter was written by the Managing Director of the Company to the concerned Ministry on 9-9-1997 and also on 15-10-1997 (copies placed on record). In the letter dated 9-9-1997, it is stated that:-- "In this connection, we have to inform you that presently 599 executives and 7663 subordinates are permanently employed in SNGPL. Against this total of 8262 there are 60 disabled persons. However, in order to meet the requirement of 1% disabled quota; we are now required to recruit 23 disabled persons in the executive and subordinate cadre. Whereas there are 270 vacancies available in the career executive establishment against which 1% disabled quota recruitment can be made, there is an over run of 1259 positions in the subordinate cadre. You are, therefore, requested to kindly clarify if we have the permission to recruit disabled persons in the subordinate cadre (equivalent to BPS 1- 15) to meet the 1% quota recruitment even if the existing establishment exceeds the approval of the Board."
5. In my opinion, the payment of money to the Fund under section 11 of the Ordinance by the Company is not proper compliance of mandatory provisions of section 10 of the Ordinance when qualified disabled persons are available for the job, especially when nothing is paid to the present petitioner even for his sustenance out of the Fund. This is not even the case of the Company that any amount is being paid to the petitioner out of that Fund, or that the required number of disabled persons, qualified for the jobs, is not available.
6. Section 10 of the Ordinance, which is reproduced below, makes it obligatory upon the respondents to employ the disabled persons equal to 1% of the total persons employed by the Company:-- "10. Establishments to employ disabled persons.---(1) Not less than one per cent. Of the total number of persons employed by an establishment at any time shall be disabled persons whose names have been registered with the Employment Exchange of the area in which such establishment is located and against whose names in the register maintained under section 12 an endorsement exists to the effect that they are fit to work."
Admittedly, in the Company, 23 vacancies exist against the reserved quota for disabled persons, yet the petitioner is not being employed although he is fully qualified for the job and has also qualified the examination which was prescribed by the respondents Company. In similar circumstances, this Court directed the respondents "to fill in vacancy of disabled persons... ... ..." vide order dated 4-7-1997 passed in Writ Petition No, 18291 of 1995.
7 I, therefore, accept this writ petition and direct the respondents to employ the petitioner against the vacancy of the Assistant, for which he had applied, after completing other necessary formalities, required for the post. This order shall be complied with within two weeks.