' This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos,12310, 905, 906, 12689, 13881, 13882, 13883 and 13884 of 1999 as common questions. Of law and facts are involved in all these petitions. The facts as alleged by the petitioners/employers in all these petitions are that the private contesting respondents in all these petitions joined T & T Department as daily wagers and their services could not be regularized due to the ban imposed by the Government and on 6-10-1996, the employer/Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited entered into an agreement with CBA regarding regularization of the services of the ad hoc/temporary/daily wagers/contingency employees iwho had completed four years' service with PTCL and on submission of the required declaration, the services of the respondents were conditionally regularized by the petitioners, but on the re-verification of the record, about the criterion mentioned with the CBA, the respondents were served with the show-cause notice by the petitioners for the termination of their services due to the alleged fraud committed by them by giving wrong declarations, etc. It is also alleged that the respondents instead of submitting replies to the show-cause notices, filed petitions under section 22-A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the National Industrial Relation Commission alleging therein that their services are being terminated on account of trade union activities. The petitions are being contested by the petitioners through written reply, objecting to the jurisdiction of the N.I.R.C. On the ground that because of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the respondents are civil servants and the exclusive jurisdiction in these matters lies with the Service Tribunal and the jurisdiction of the N.I.R.C. Is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Member N.I.R.C., on the receipt of the above said petitions, instituted by the private respondents, has admitted the petitions to regular hearing and has suspended the operation of the impugned order issued by the petitioners and the, same have also been confirmed on various dates. In most of the above said petitions, the respondents have also filed contempt petitions for implementation of the injunctive orders passed by the Single Member of the N.I.R.C. In some of the cases, the petitioners' appeals against the said orders issued by the Single Member of the N.I.R.C. Have also been dismissed by the Full Bench of N.I.R.C. The petitioners through these Constitutional petitions have challenged the proceedings pending before the NIRC and are seeking quashment of the same, and also of the setting aside of the stay orders passed by the Single Member of the N.I.R.C. On the ground that the respondents, though daily wages, are civil servants within the meaning of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 because they are employees of the Company established, owned and controlled by the Federal Government and, therefore, Service Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the issue which has been incompetently raised by the respondents hefore the N.I.R.C. Which lacks jurisdiction to entertain the respondents' petition due to the bar as contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Is amic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the N.I.R.C. Lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petitions of the respondents because the Honourable Supreme Court in Syed Aftab Ahmed and others v. KESC and others (1999 SCMR 197) has already eclared:-- "(i) That section 2-A of the Service Trib s Act, 1973 is applicable retrospectively so far as the right of app al is concerned, as the same is merely a procedural matter.
(ii) That it is not necessary for an employee working in any of the organizations covered by section 2-A that he should also come within the ambit of definition of "civil strvant" given in section 2(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.
(iii) That the employees of various authorities, corporations etc., mentioned in section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 have been treated in the service of Pakistan for the limited purpose for providing remedy by way of appeal to them against an order of which they may feel aggrieved i,e, an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, and (iv) That the employees employed on contract basis or workmen excluded by the definition of 'civil servants' given in section 2(1)(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, have also to go to Federal Service Tribunal because the exception mentioned in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, have been held as not attracted to the cases of the employees of the Corporations etc., covered by section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973."
3. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners have no force because of the latest law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Divisional Engineer Phones, Phones Divisions, Sukkur and another v. Muhammad Shahid and others (1999 PLC (CS) 1208), also reported as (1999 SCMR 1526) wherein it has been explicitly held that the persons, like the present contesting respondents, who were admittedly appointed after the creation of the Corporation did not enjoy the status of civil servants and, therefore, they could not avail of remedy in respect of a dispute which related to their terms and conditions of service, before the Service Tribunal, established under the Service Tribunal Act, 1973. The Honourable Supreme Court has also held that the person who belonged to the category of the persons who have been declared as "civil servants" under section 2-A of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 for the purposes of availing of the remedy before the Service Tribunal in the absence of a corresponding amendment in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 cannot automatically become "civil servants" within the meaning of Civil Servants Act, 1973.
4. On the strength of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Divisional Engineer Phones, Phones Division, Sukkur and another v. Muhammad Shahid and others (supra), it is held that private contesting respondents, who are merely daily wagers, are not civil servants because of the absence of the corresponding amendment in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and also because admittedly they were taken into employment by the petitioners after the creation of the statutory Corporation. They have, thus, no remedy of an appeal before the Service Tribunal and the bar of Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is not attracted to their case. The proceedings pending before the N.I.R.C. Cannot, therefore, be held to be without jurisdiction.
5. In view of the abovementioned, these petitions are devoid of any merit and are accordingly dismissed. There is, however, no order as to costs because the respondents have not entered their appearance today.