' TALAT QAYUM QURESHI, J.---Messrs.' Mustehkam Cement Ltd. Officers Welfare Association Hatter, Tehsil and District Haripur is a duly registered association under the provisions of I.R.O., 1969. Its members claim to be employees of Messrs State Cement Corporation of Pakistan who have been posted to Mustehkam Cement Ltd., Hattar, Haripur, which is one of the subsidiary Company of State Cement Corporation and is for all practical purposes controlled by State Cement Corporation. The appointments, promotions, transfers, sanctions and grant of annual increments, sanction of long service Award and sanction of Ex-Pakistan leave are issued, made approved and sanctioned by State Cement Corporation of Pakistan. The claims of the petitioner is that its members are entitled to all the benefits and privileges as are admissible to the employees of State Cement Corporation.
2. This Court directed the respondent No,1 to file parawise comments which were duly filed and issued notice to respondents, in response to which Mr. Abid Aziz Sheikh, Advocate entered appearance on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 3.
3. Mr. Abdur Rehman Qadar, Advocate the learned counsel representing the petitioner argued that M/s. Mustehkam Cement Ltd. Respondent No,3 was incorporated as Public Ltd: Company on 29-7- 1954 and was taken over by the Federal Government of Pakistan on 2-1-1972 in pursuance of Economic Reforms Order (P.O. No,2 of 1972) alongwith other Cement Management Units in the country. State Cement Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., respondent No,1 was incorporated as (Private) Ltd. Company with 100% Government Shareholding on 11-8-1973. Since its incorporation, the respondent No,1 has been acting as Holding Company having administrative and economic control over the affairs of respondent No,3 and other nationalized Cement Units. The Members of the petitioner-association have been working with respondent No,3. They are in fact employees of State Cement Corporation of Pakistan, respondent No,1 because they are working under the direct administration and economic control of respondent No,
1. Their appointments, promotions, transfers, sanctions and grant of annual increments are made and approved by respondent No, 1 .
The members of the petitioner-association get pay scales and other benefits like house rent and conveyance etc. Which are given to the management grade officers of respondent No,1. The grant of financial incentives to the employees of respondent No,1 posted and working in the subsidiary units including Mustehkam Cement Ltd. Are subject to the approval of Chairman of State Cement Corporation who is also Chairman of Board of Directors of Mustehkam Cement Ltd.
5. In the recent years Government of Pakistan decided to de-nationalize the Cement Units by way of privatization and in this respect in the year 1997 Company introduced Golden-hand-shake Scheme and Voluntary Retirement Scheme for the workers and employees and approved benefits 1 + 4 for 363 workers, in order to get maximum benefits in case of voluntary retirement scheme the respondent No,1 illegally allowed a special allowance to compensate financial hardship to its officers working at Head Office, Lahore only at the rate of 35%, 30% and 25% of the basic pay on 21- 5-1999 and the competent authority approved implementation of special allowance. The said benefits were not extended to the employees who were working with subsidiary units like Mustehkam Cement Ltd. Thereby depriving them of the said benefits. The respondent No,1 with connivance of Officers Welfare Association Head Office, Lahore executed a memorandum of settlement, dated 23-6-1999. While negotiating the demand with State Cement Corporation of Pakistan Officers Association, Head Office, Lahore enhanced gratuity benefit of resignation, retirement, retrenchment, golden hand-shake or voluntary retirement scheme three times for Executives and Managing Director thereby depriving the Officers/members of petitioner- Association working at subsidiary units of Mustehkam Cement Ltd. The said agreement was kept secret from the petitioners. The respondent No, l also approved the provision of various benefits to the employees working at its Head Office, Lahore and deprived those employees who were working in its subsidiary units. The members of the petitioner-association having felt that they were discriminated served charter of demand upon respondent No,1 but with no success.
6. It was also argued that the members of the petitioner-association have been not only discriminated but have also been deprived of their legitimate rights. The respondents have violated the provisions of Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, in that they deserve equal treatment with the employees of State Cement Corporation at Head Office.
7. On the other hand Mr. Abid Aziz Sheikh, Advocate, the learned counsel representing respondents Nos.1 and 2 raised objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the association has no locus standi to file the writ petition in hand. He placed reliance on:
(1) PLD 1964 W.P. (Lahore) 138 "Pakistan Steel Re-Rolling Mills Association v. Province of West Pakistan".
(2) PLD 1972 Lahore 489 "The Punjab Miners' Labor Union v. The West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Jhelum".
(3) 1987 CLC 2154, "Pakistan Diploma Engineers Federation (Regd.), Lahore v. Federation of Pakistan and 9 others".
(4) PLD 1982 SC 308 "Anjuman Araian, Bhera v. Abdul Rashid and others".
8. He further argued that a similar question came up before Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in W.P. No,73/98 filed by Mustehkam Cement Ltd. Head Office Association but the said writ petition was dismissed vide judgment order, dated 30-9-1999. After the dismissal of the said writ petition another association under the names and style of Mustehkam Cement Ltd. Officers Welfare Association, Hattar, District Haripur (petitioner) was formed which was registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions on 20-12-1999 which has filed the writ petition in hand without disclosing the fact of dismissal of earlier writ petition thereby attempting to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel has placed on record copies of judgments/orders passed in similar writ petitions.
Writ Petition No,322 of 1996 was dismissed on 4-3-1997, Writ Petition No, 13839 of 1994 was dismissed on 13-3-1995, W.P. 4145 of 1993 on 5-10-1995 and W.P. No,14287 of 1994 was dismissed on 17-6-1998.
9. It was further argued that the officers/employees of respondent No,3 inclusive of 32 employees/members whose names have been given in para. No,4 of the writ petition formed Mustehkam Cement Employment Management Group Trust. The said Trust entered into an agreement and understanding with the President of Pakistan through the Privatization Commission on 18-7-1998. This agreement provides for payment of golden hand-shake/V.S.S. To the employees of respondent No,3 including 32 officers/employees. In accordance with the said agreement 637 employees including 26 officers and 611 workers have already voluntarily retired from service of respondent No,3 on 2-10-1998 after payment of golden hand-shake/V.S.S. Benefits to them. The said 32 officers/employees have also opted for the golden hand-shake/V.S.S. Benefits as per agreement, dated 18-7-1998 and the members of the petitioner-association including other employees of respondent No,3 will be retired in near future as per their option because Mustehkam Cement Company has ceased production w,e,f, 10-1-1999.
10. It was further argued that there is not discrimination against the members of the petitioner- association as they are not the employees of respondent No,
1. The members of the petitioner- association whose names have been mentioned in para. No,4 of the writ petition have availed the benefits of the agreement, dated 18-7-1998 and have received cheques from Privatization Commission. The amount payable by Mustehkam Cement Company shall be paid to them after settlement of their accounts in near future. The members of the petitioner-association, it was argued were not the employees of State Cement Corporation but were employees of Mustehkam Cement Corporation as both the Companies are independent legal entities, separate and distinct from respondent No, 1 .
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record produced by the parties.
12. We first of all take the question of maintainability of writ petition raised by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 3. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 3 that the petitioner has no locus standi to file writ petition in hand has no force at all.
Petitioner is duly registered association under the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
The Registrar of Trade Unions has issued certificate of registration, dated 20-12-1999 which is still valid and subsisting. The employees/officers of respondents Nos.1 and 3 have their rights guaranteed under Article 17(1) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to form association or unions subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law. In "Muhammad Afzal and others v. Mushtaraqa Mulazmeen Action Committee and others" 1999 PLC (C.S.) 1116 it was held:- "As it has already been held hereinabove that the Provincial Employees being citizens have freedom to form an Association and Union, therefore, in representative capacity, they have instituted these petitions for enforcement of fundamental rights of the Provincial Government employees, working in Quetta District, guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution, as such, in view of the dictum laid down in this behalf, by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of I.A. Sharwani (1991 SCMR 1041), relevant paras. Wherefrom have been reproduced hereinabove, we are inclined to hold that petitioners are aggrieved persons and they have also locus standi, being the Representative of their respective Unions and Associations, to institute present petitions for claiming relief in terms of Article 25 of the Constitution, therefore, the objection raised in this behalf by the learned Advocate- General, is overruled."
13. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 3 that the members of the petitioner-association, names of whom have been given in paragraph No,4, of the writ petition had accepted the offer of the management, dated 13-10-1998 for premature voluntary retirement under golden hand-shake scheme and opted for premature voluntary retirement under the said scheme.
The options/undertakings for golden hand-sake scheme/V.S.S. Were furnished/submitted before the prescribed date to the management and they have received cheques for the partial payment of their dues also. They cannot turn around and claim other benefits than offered under the said scheme. This argument of the learned counsel has force in it. Respondent No,3 vide Circular No,ES/GHS-VSS/11/98, dated 13-10-1998 invited applications from workers and officials of Mustehkam Cement Ltd. Head Office and Factory for premature voluntary retirement under golden hand-shake at the rate of 1.4 and V.S.S at the rate of 1.2 up to 31-10-1998. It was offered that the legal dues under deed would be paid by the Company whereas 4 basic pay (as defined in agreement, dated 18-7-1998 between Mustehkam Cement Ltd. And Privatization Commission) to the workers under golden hand-shake scheme and two basic pays to the officers under V.S.S. Would be paid by the Privatization Commission. The members of the petitioner-association mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ petition opted for voluntary premature retirement under golden hand-shake and V.S.S. And submitted their options/undertakings before 31-10-1989. As per agreement, dated 18-7-1998 executed between Mustehkam Cement Ltd. And Privatization Commission, they have been paid by the privatization Commission and respondent No,3 shall pay the remaining amount after settlement of their accounts. Having received amount under the scheme and members of the petitioners---association cannot turn around and claim other benefits.
14. The argument of the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 3 that the members of the petitioner-association are not regulated by statutory rules and in the absence of any statutory rules governing the terms and conditions of their service, they are governed B by the law of Master and Servant and they cannot ask for any direction in the nature of writ and the writ petition on this score is not maintainable. This argument also has force in it. Admittedly, the members of the petitioners-associations are not regulated by any statute or by any statutory rules. In the absence of any statute or statutory rules governing their terms and conditions of service they are governed by the law of Master and Servant. Although we did not find any illegality in the actions of respondents but still if for the sake of arguments it is presumed that respondents' action vis-a-vis the members of petitioner-association is illegal even then the only remedy available to them is to sue for the damages being governed by law of Master and Servant. In a similar case 'R.T.H. Janjua v. National Shipping Corporation' PLD 1974 SC 146, "Anwar Hussain v. A.D.V.P." PLD 1984 SC 194, "M.H.
Mirza v. C.D.A." 1994 SCMR 1024, "Sardar Ali v. University of Punjab" 1992 SCMR 109, "Muhammad Umar Malik v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd." 1995 SCMR 453, "Habib Bank Ltd. And others v. Syed Ziaul Hassan Kazmi" 1998 SCMR 60, "United Bank Ltd. And others v. Ahsan Akhtar and others" 1998 SCMR 68, "Wazir Ali Khoja v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd." 1998 SCMR 1452, it was held that in the absence of any right being guaranteed by any statute or statutory rules, the petitioners' services were regulated by the law of Master and Servant.
15. It is worth mentioning that various writ petitions filed by the employees/officers of State Cement Corporation of Pakistan and its subsidiary units were dismissed by various Benches of Lahore High Court. Writ Petition No, '3 of 1998 filed before Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi was dismissed on 30-9- 1999, Writ Petition No,322 of 1996 was dismissed on 4-3-1997 by Lahore High Court, W.P. No,13839 of 1994 was dismissed on 13-3-1995, W.P. No,4145 of 1993 was dismissed on 5-10-1995 and W.P.
No,14287 of 1994 filed by employees of Ghareebwal Cement claiming the same relief was dismissed on 17-6-1998 by Lahore High Court with the following observations:-- "The petitioners in all these petitions claim to be employees of State Cement Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. And pray for the issuance of a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioners similar to other employees of the State Cement Corporation.
' In the report submitted by respondent No,2 it has been denied that the petitioners were employee of State Cement Corporation. On the other hand, it has been stated that the petitioners were employees of Gharibwal Cement Ltd. a Company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 which had been taken over by the State Cement Corporation of Pakistan. It has also been stated that the petitioners have already availed of the benefits of Golden Shake-hand Scheme offered by the owners of Gharibwal Cement Ltd. In these circumstances, it does not lie with the petitioners to claim additional benefits.
' All these petitions are dismissed in limine. "
16. Keeping in view the above discussion we are clear in our mind that the writ petition in hand is not maintainable: firstly because the employees of the petitioner-association are not governed with any statute or statutory rules; secondly they are governed with the law of Master and Servant, hence they cannot ask for any direction through writ petition in hand; thirdly the members of the association have opted for voluntary retirement under Golden Handshake Scheme and have received substantial amount, as per their options they cannot now turn around and ask for other benefits; fourthly, many writ petitions filed by the employees of State Cement Corporation or its subsidiary units raising the similar issues detail of which has been given above have already been dismissed by Honorable Lahore High Court; fifthly the members of petitioner-association are not the employees of State Cement Corporation. They are employees of Mustehkam Cement Corporation and both are independent, distinct and separate entities having their own memorandum and articles of association and own board of directors: sixthly a similar W.P.
No,73/98 filed by Mustehkam Cement Ltd. Head Office, Rawalpindi claiming the same relief had already been dismissed on 30-9-1999; seventhly, the petitioner has kept secret the factum of dismissal of W.P. No,73/98 and after its dismissal has formed Mustekham Cement Ltd. Officers Welfare Association Hattar in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court without disclosing that their claim has already been dismissed.
17. We therefore, dismiss the writ petition in limine with no orders as to costs.