' The petitioner No,1 is an Association of the employees of the respondent Board. The petitioners Nos.2, 3 and 4 are office-bearers of petitioner No,l.
2. The respondent No,1 Board was established under the West Pakistan Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education (Multan and Sargodha) Ordinance, 1968. Thereafter, the said Board was reconstituted under the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act XIII of 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").
3. The admitted position is that the employees of the respondent Board are, on a regular basis, required to work overtime after normal office hours. This additional work is necessitated due to the exigencies of the functions which the Board performs, namely the conduct of examinations and all matters relating to such examinations. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends, and this is not denied by learned counsel for the respondents, that there are occasions, particularly when examinations are being conducted or results compiled, when the employees of the respondent Board are called upon to work late in the evening time or at nights and also on gazetted holidays.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that some time in the year 1970 the respondent Board, pursuant to a decision, dated 2-10-70, made by the Committee of Chairmen of West Pakistan Boards, decided to compensate the employees of the Board for work done after normal working hours by paying to them an overtime allowance of Re.1 per head per day for the first three hours of overtime and at the rate of Rs,2 per head per day beyond three hours. Thereafter, by another decision of the respondent Board, the employees working overtime, were allowed a bonus equal to one month's salary divided into two instalments subject to satisfactory extra work rendered by them. On 6-2-1974 the respondent Board decided to change the terminology of the compensation and instead of bonus the compensation was termed as an honorarium. It is to be noted that the honorarium was only paid to such employees who actually performed work beyond normal work hours. Thus, employees, who did not perform such work, were not entitled to the honorarium.
5. Initially, the honorarium was available to Class A, B and C employees of the Board at the rate of two initial pays per year. This decision was made by the Board on 25-6-1975. Thereafter, on 30-1- 1982 the Board enhanced the rate of honorarium to two basic pays per annum which were payable to all employees performing additional work.
6. On 26-6-1997 the Government of the Punjab, in the Finance Department, issued a letter to various Government departments and agencies in respect of economy measures to be adopted by such departments and agencies for the year 1997-98. In this letter it was directed that no expenditure would be incurred on the grant of honorarium without the prior approval of the Chief Minister. The respondent Board, on the basis of the aforesaid letter, dated 26-6-1997, stopped payment of the amount which was previously being paid to the employees of the respondent Board as compensation for work done by them beyond normal working hours. This action was taken by the respondent Board on the ground that the amount being paid to the employees for overtime, was termed as an honorarium and also on the assumption that the Provincial Government could issue binding directions to the respondent Board.
7. Upon being questioned, the learned counsel for the respondent. Board stated that the term "honorarium" contained in the Government letter of 26-6-1997, had not been defined by the Government. Although undefined, the term appears, from the context in which it is placed, to refer to sums in the nature of ex gratia payments or other amounts paid as largesse. The mere terminology of an amount will not be determinative of the rights being claimed by the petitioner association and the employees of the respondent Board. It is the contention of the petitioners that they continue to remain entitled to compensation for work which they are performing overtime beyond the normal working hours of the respondent Board.
8. The admitted position is that even today the respondent Board requires its employees to work beyond office hours, as noted above, even during the night and on holidays if the exigencies of the respondent Board's work so require. It is also admitted that only such employees of the Board as work overtime are entitled to the additional remuneration which is termed as an honorarium by the Board.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued, that the employees of the respondent Board, could not be compelled to work overtime beyond their normal work hours, without compensation. This argument has force. It is clear that the salaries paid to the employees of the Board, are in respect of services rendered by them during the normal working hours. The respondent Board did not argue that the terms of employment of its employees required them to work overtime without compensation, on a regular basis. On the contrary, the Board did not controvert the petitioners' assertion that the extra work done overtime was not a duty, but was performed by such employees only who opted for it in the expectation of the additional compensation.
10. Any work being performed by the employees of the respondent Board, which is not covered by their normal salary, has to be compensated by the respondent Board. The mere fact that the respondent Board chose, in the year 1975, to term such additional compensation as an honorarium, will not per see, suffice for the purpose of bringing the said compensation within the prohibition contained in the Government's letter, dated 26-6-1997 whereby payment of honorarium was restricted. This is particularly so in view of the fact that the term "honorarium" has not been defined in the aforesaid letter. The matter of paying compensation to the employees of the Board is one which is within the competence of the Board and is subject to the terms of employment settled between the Board and its employees.
11. One other important aspect, necessary to be mentioned at this stage, is that the respondent Board is an autonomous corporate body. The respondent Board generates its own funds for its operation and is not dependent upon grants or subsidies from the Government. The Government has been designated as the Controlling Authority of the respondent Board by the Act. However, as the controlling Authority, the Government does not have the power to control the manner in which the respondent Board manages to raise its finances and the heads on which said funds are expended by the Board.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent referred to section 12(1) of the Act to argue that the Controlling Authority had powers in respect of funds generated by the respondent Board. I have gone through the said provision of law. It merely empowers the Government to act as Controlling Authority to inspect or cause' an inspection to be made, inter alia, of the activities and funds of the Board. The power to inspect. Or to cause an inspection of funds, cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be extended to cover a control of the funds and the manner in which such funds are spent.
13. It is further to be noted that the austerity measures, which have been outlined in the Government's letter of 26-6-1997, can at best be considered as being applicable to such heads of expenditure which are charged on the funds of the Provincial Government. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondent Board and the learned Law Officer have stated that the Board raises its own funding and prepares its own budget without requiring any supplement or grant from the Provincial Government. The letter of the Government, dated 26-6- 1997 does appear to be addressed to the heads of autonomous bodies and corporations in the Punjab. However, where an autonomous body such as the respondent Board is not dependent on funds provided by the Provincial Government, it is difficult to accept the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent Board that the letter of 26-6-1997 is applicable to the respondent Board also. As noted above, the Government is only a Controlling Authority under the Act and in such capacity it can only exercise the limited functions which are delegated to it under section 12 of the aforesaid Statute. Such functions, as noted above, do not include the authority to issue mandatory directives to control the use of funds by the Board.
14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Board as well as the learned Law Officer has been unable to point out any provisions in the Act which empower the Provincial Government to control or direct the manner in which the respondent Board should expend its funds.
15. From the foregoing discussion, it is firstly far from certain that the honorarium, mentioned in the Government's letter of 26-6-1997, governs the amount which, though termed an "honorarium," is paid by the respondent Board to its employees as compensation for work done by them beyond normal working hours and beyond the normal call of their duty. Secondly, even if the honorarium, mentioned in the aforesaid letter of 26-6-1997, could be stretched so as to include therein the amount of compensation being paid to the employees of the respondent Board, the directive of the Government would be beyond the powers vested in the Government as Controlling Authority under the Act.
16. In view of the foregoing, this petition is allowed and it is declared that the letter of 26-6-1997 and the second letter, dated 21-7-1997 requiring compliance of the letter, dated 26-6-1997 are inoperative and without lawful authority in respect of the rights of the employees of the respondent Board.