' Let these be considered as admitted cases. Vide this single judgment Writ Petitions Nos.1766, 1967, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773 and 1774 of 2001 are also decided. Writ Petition No,11970 of 2000 is also on the same subject-matter and is partly heard by this Court. A direction was given by this Court for its fixation in the third week of May, 2001, but since it pertains to the same matter and between the same parties, therefore, it is also decided vide this judgment.
2. The facts rising to the instant writ petitions are that the respondents being aggrieved of their employment as work-charge filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 before the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan. This grievance petition was contested by the petitioners as respondents. Vide judgment, dated 18-6-1996 the grievance petition was accepted and the judgment of the Punjab Labour Court, dated 31-1-1994 was held to hold the field and it was observed that the respondents were regular employees, therefore, they cannot be considered as "work-charge". It is worth mentioning that in the earlier rounds of litigations between the petitioners and the respondents judgment, dated 31-1-1994 was passed after apprising the evidence on record and the learned Labour Court on the statement of employer that nature of job of the respondents is of a "permanent nature" passed the judgment in their favour. Appeal against this judgment was withdrawn. The judgment, dated 18-6-1996 passed by the learned Labour Court No,9, Multan was assailed in appeal before the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, which was dismissed vide judgment, dated 1-3-2000 and the judgment of learned Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan was upheld vide judgment, dated 1-3-2000. This judgment is impugned in the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the respondents are "work-charge" employees and they had no locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of the learned Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan by filing a grievance petition as they were not workmen under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The respondents had opted as work-charge employees and their job was purely temporary nature and can be continued with the sweet will of their employer as per requirement for some project under Buildings and Roads Code. He further argued that both the learned Courts below in two rounds of litigation have put emphasis on judgment, dated 31-1- 1994 passed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan which considered the respondents as workmen although the learned superior Court has held "a work-charge" employee cannot attain the status of a workman because of his length of service (2000 SCM R 879).
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the instant writ petitions have been filed to perpetuate the illegality and no writ can be issued in aid of injustice, he has relied on Muhammad Aslam v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1997 PLC 6. He further argued that even a void order cannot be set aside if it promotes the justice, relied on NLR 1998 Civil 687. In these writ petitions findings of fact by the Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction cannot be disturbed in Constitutional jurisdiction, relied on 1999 SCM R 2331. Further submitted that the petitioners have withdrawn their appeal against the order, dated 31-1-1994 and that order has attained the finality being past and closed transaction irrespective of its quality either factual or legal PLD 1987 SC 145.
The impugned order, dated 31-1-1994 was passed on the statement of the employer, therefore, the petitioners are estopped by their own conduct to file the present petitions. In the original writ petitions the impugned order, dated 31-1-1994 was omitted to have been challenged and has been challenged through amended petitions with permission of the Court subject to all just exceptions, whereas per law, the abandoned relief cannot be claimed as it has changed the whole case.
Moreover, the impugned order of 1994 is under challenge in the present writ petitions after about seven years, therefore, the present petitions are liable to be dismissed on the principle of laches.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In two rounds of litigation it was maintained by the Tribunal of competent jurisdiction that the respondents being workmen have a right to file a grievance petition. It. Was also maintained by the Tribunals below that nature of job of the respondents was not a work-charged but it was a permanent nature and this decision was given after appraisal of evidence in the order, dated 31-1-1994. This order of the learned Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan has attained finality and it has become a past and closed transaction as this order was not disturbed in two rounds of litigation by any Court.
Petitioners have assailed this order in the amended petition with permission of the Court subject to the right of limitation. It is surprising that the petitioners did not challenge this order in their original petition, which was filed on 28-2-2001. In the original writ petitions the petitioners did not challenge the aforesaid order even they failed to challenge the same before the learned Appellate Tribunal having competent jurisdiction to deal with the matter, therefore, they cannot challenge the same in amended writ petition filed on 9-4-2001. On this score writ petitions suffer from lathes of almost seven years and there is no explanation to condone the same.
6. I have inquired from the petitioners as well as the respondents what is the nature of jobs for which they were employed. This Court was apprised that many of the respondents are doing for collection of utility bills, they are Naib-Qasids and they are having other jobs which are of permanent nature and even otherwise they had been sent to do the difficult task as their matter is to be decided by the Courts. Judgment which is referred by learned counsel for the petitioners WAPDA and others v. Khanimullah and others 2000 SCM R 879, it is held in this judgment "whether a workman is permanent or temporary employee is to be determined by the nature of work whether it is permanent nature and is likely to last for a period of more than 9 months of successful completion of probationary period of three months in the same or the nature of work is temporary and is likely to be finished within a period of nine months, a workman employed on such work shall be deemed to be a temporary workman.
7. In the second round of litigation in the learned Courts below in judgment, dated 31-1-1994 it is admitted by the petitioners in evidence that nature of work for which the respondents are employed are of permanent nature, therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondents are working for a long time with the department. They are well aware and well-acquainted with the nature of work, they are already performing duties. The learned Courts of competent jurisdiction in second round of litigation have given verdict in favour of the respondents which cannot be disturbed in Constitutional petition without material substance available to the petitioners.
8. Even otherwise the petitioners have challenged the order, dated 31-1-1994 in Writ Petition of 2001, which suffers from laches and the order, dated 31-1-1994 has become a past and closed transaction. The respondents cannot be deprived from their rights when the Court of competent jurisdiction has given verdict in their favour. In fact the respondents' services stand regularized from the date of appointment by the order, dated 31-1-1994, therefore, finding no substance in these writ petitions the same are dismissed. No order as to costs.