NABI BAKHSH BHATTI, MEMBER.--- By this common judgment we intend to dispose of the above 35 appeals bearing Nos. 730(L)/98 to 764(L)/98 since identical questions of law and facts are involved therein. The ' main judgment is being recorded in Appeal No 730(L)/98 filed by Muhammad Yasin Rashid Vs. Chairman, PTCL etc.
2. The precise facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the appellants herein, were got employed on work charged basis by the authorities of the respondents some time prior to 1996 and the appellants moved a Constitutional Petition No. 22687/1996 in the Hon'ble Lahore High Court claiming to have become permanent employees by the operation of law with a prayer for order to treat as such for the purpose of salary, wages/increments, seniority and promotion etc. The respondents, therein, at the very outset objected the maintainability of the constitutional petition in view of the insertion of section 2-A in the Service tribunals Act, 1973 read with Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and eventually the Hon'ble Lahore High Court dismissed the Writ Petition in limine on 4.3.1998 with the orders verbatim reproduced below:- "I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The admitted position is that all the petitioners joined respondent- Corporation or its predecessor more than two years before filing of this Writ Petition. This is also admitted that none of them was on probation. The respondents by raising the objection with reference to section 2-A have accepted them regular employees, therefore, they are held civil servants for the purpose of Service Tribunals Act, 1973; therefore, the Writ is dismissed in limine."
3. The appellants on the basis of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court assuming themselves to be the regular - employees and civil servants invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 with the prayer for direction to the respondents to grant regular pay scale and all other facilities at par with other permanent employees of the establishment of the respondents.
4. We have listened to the learned counsel for the parties at some length and the prose and cons of the pleadings of the parties lead us to concentrate in the matter in hand on 3 aspects:- Firstly, whether on appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 can be filed or entertained without the existence of terms and conditions of services (contract of employment) without the existence of any, original or appellate order.
Secondly, whether the service appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 can be based on the judgment/order of the Hon'ble High Court and whether this Tribunal can assume the jurisdiction as an executing authority/Court for the purpose of enforcement/execution of the judgment of order of Hon'ble High Court.
Thirdly, whether with the insertion of section 2-A in the . Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the definition of "civil servant" as provided under section 2 of the said Act has been repealed and a person employed on contract, or on work charged basis or paid from contingencies can invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 4 of the Act.
As regards the first aspect of the appeals in hand, appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals .Act, 1973 is maintainable only when the question relates to enforcement of terms and conditions of service of an employee as envisaged by the Act. In the case of the appellants neither there existed any contract of employment between the appellants and the respondents providing terms and conditions of service being violated by the respondents enforceable through statutory jurisdiction of this Tribunal, nor there existed any original or appellate order passed by the authorities of the respondents. The provision of section 4 lays down the conditions and circumstances in which the appeal is maintainable or not. Interpretation of the word "ORDER" has to be confined within four corners of Civil Servants Act, 1973 and Service Tribunals Act 1973%and right of appeal is statutory right and is conferred upon the person .Aggrieved and the statute conferring such rights also defined its scope. More with the insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, no extraneous concentration or matter can be imported in the statute so as so abridge or enlarge the scope of the appeals. While interpreting the provision of statute or rules, such interpretation is not to be placed. Which would render object of statute or rules. We are of the considered view that the instant appeals do not at all fulfil the requirement of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and are not at all maintainable under law and facts.
5. As regards the second aspect of the case obviously the order of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court dated 4.3.1998, on which the appellants are relying upon does not at all support the appellants for the purpose of entertaining their appeals by this Tribunal as the referred writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court in limine on 4.3.1998. Merely, the statement of the counsel for the respondents before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court with reference to section 2-A cannot override the provisions of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 for the purpose of entertaining the appeals of the appellants by this Tribunal without meeting legal requirement. As after the orders of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court dated 4.3.1998, the respondent-department has not at all accepted the status and locus standi of the appellants as their regular employees as claimed by the appellants relying upon the order of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court but still treating them to be on work ,charged basis and for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, assertion of the appellants has only based upon the order of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court dated 4.3.1998 and in other words, the appellants are seeking the execution and enforcement of the order of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court by this Tribunal. We are afraid, this Tribunal cannot assume the jurisdiction as an executing authority/Court in respect of the orders of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court and in case the above referred order of Hon'ble Lahore High Court is assumed by the appellants in their favour they may avail the appropriate remedy provided to them for the enforcement of the said order available under law and service appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 cannot be based on the order of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court referred by, the appellants in their appeals.
6. As regards the third aspect o the instant appeals, this alive fact is not at all denied by the learned counsel for the appellants that even after the aforesaid orders of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, the appellants are employed still on work charged basis and there existed no contract of employment between the appellants and the respondents treating them to be the permanent employees of the establishment specifying certain terms and conditions of services between them.
Admittedly the appellants are employed on work charged basis as yet. Following paras No. 5, 7 and 11 of parawise comments filed by the respondents are relevant and are reproduced below- "(5) That the appellant did not fulfil the criteria previously laid down in the settlement/agreement between the CBA with respondent's department hence regularization of his service against permanent post does not arise.
(7) That the appellant was engaged on daily wages basis hence he cannot claim any benefit nor he can consider for regularization from the respondent department.
(11) That the appellant did not challenge any order of respondent department hence appeal is not maintainable in the eye of law."
Under section 2(a) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 read with section 2(b)(ii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, the appellants are excluded from the definition of "Civil Servant" and the provision of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 does not at all attract in the case of the appellants and it has recently been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide reported judgment placed in 1999 SCM R 1526 and 1539 that in the absence of a corresponding amendment in the Civil Servants Act, 1973, a person cannot automatically become a "civil servant" within the meanings of Civil Servants act, 1973. It is, therefore, quite obvious that if a person is not a civil servant within the meanings of Civil Servants Act, 1973, he cannot avail the remedy provided under the Service Tribunals At, 1973 as with the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the original definition of "civil servant" provided under section 2 of the said Act has neither been amended nor repealed. The appellants being, employed on work charged basis, in the absence of any contract of employment specifying the terms and conditions of their employment are not entitled to invoke the statutory jurisdiction of this Tribunal being ousted from the definition of civil servant.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that we are of the considered view that the appeals in hand are not at all maintainable under law and facts and resultantly all the appeals are, dismissed with no order as to cost. Parties be informed.