' This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.12288 of 2001, 12289 of 2001 and 12290 of 2001 also as the questions law and fact arising therein are common. The parties are represented and have been duly heard. Therefore, these writ petitions are being finally disposed of.
2. In Writ Petitions Nos.12288 of 2001, 12289 of 2001 and 12808 of 2001, the petitioners are the widows of the ex-employees of the Punjab Road Transport Corporation, while in Writ Petition No,12290 of 2001 the petitioner is the son of the deceased employee. The grievance, common in these cases is that against an amount of Rs,1,00,000 payable for the Group Insurance on account of the death of Inc employees, an amount of Rs,30,000 was paid in each case while the balance amount is not being paid. On being questioned the learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.1 and 2 submits that the amount due for Group Insurance was Rs,1,00,000. He however, submits that the petitions are barred by laches, the petitioners received Rs,30,000 in 1995, whereas writ petitions have been filed in 2001 after six years. It is further contended that the writ petitions are not maintainable because the service of the employees was not governed by any statutory rules and therefore, relationship of deceased employees with the employer i,e, the Punjab Road Transport Corporation was governed by the rule of master and servant, Reliance is being placed on M.H.
Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2.Others (1994 SCM R 1024).
3. Not only the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 does not dispute the entitlement of the petitioners in each case to a sum of Rs,1,00,000 the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that in 24 cases, a list of which was produced in the Court, full amount of Rs,1,00,000 has been paid to the legal representatives of the deceased employees. These cases include the decrees of the Civil Court, directions issued in Writ Petitions Nos.5171 of 1998, 18687 of 1998, 18688 of 1998, 18689 of 1998, 18690 of 1998, 18691 of 1998, 18692 of 1998, 19957 of 1998, 20595 of 1998, 20596 of 1998, 20597 of 1998, 20598 of 1998, 22406 of 1998, 22407 of 1998 and 25498 of 1998 and the directions of the learned Provincial Ombudsman. It was also brought to my notice that for the year 2001-2002 an amount of Rs,1,80,00,000 has been placed at the disposal of the PRTC through the "Estimates of Charged Expenditure and Demands for Grants" for the purpose of Group Insurance.
4. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Having paid the outstanding dues for Group Insurance in 24 cases mentioned above and fact that the liability is not disputed, I am not persuaded to dismiss these writ petitions on the ground of laches because the dictates of justice demand otherwise. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 cannot be permitted to take refuge under a technical plea. As observed in Pakistan Post Office v. Settlement Commissioner and others (1998 SCMR 1119), a petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. It may also be observed that the amount which is due to the petitioners will continue to remain due so as to provide a recurring cause of action of them.
5. As far as the second contention is concerned, the claim of the petitioners is based on the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 read with Standing Order No,10-B of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The right being guaranteed to the petitioners under a law cannot be defeated on the plea based on the rule of master and servant. Although the respondent corporation is a company yet it is financially and administratively controlled by the Government of the Punjab and thus qualifies as an agency or instrumentality of the State. As an agency of the State it cannot be heard to say that it is at liberty to act in the matter arbitrarily and in defiance of a provision of law. By withholding the amount due to the petitioners in these cases, the PRTC is plainly acting in a harsh, unjust and oppressive manner besides acting contrary to the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act and Standing Order 10-B. It may also be noted that a number of identical cases, the claims of similarly placed persons have been allowed by the PRTC. The petitioners cannot, therefore, be treated in a different manner. The judgment in the case of M.H. Mirza, supra has no application to the facts and circumstances of these cases.
6. For what has been stated above, these writ petitions are allowed and the PRTC is directed to release the amount due to the petitioners within a period of two months. No order as to costs.