MIR SATTARUDDIN Vs. PALLI DARIDRA BIMOCHON FOUNDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions for review are directed against the judgment and order dated 19.04.2007 passed by this Division in Civil Appeal Nos.84-85 of 2004 allowing the appeals.

(2.) The facts of the case, in short, are that in all the writ petitions the respective respondents have challenged respective order of termination from the service of the respective petitioner herein. The writ petitioners were employed in Palli Daridra Bimochon Foundation (PDBF) serving in Rural Development Board and by Act, XXIII of 1999 while PDBF was established, as per provision of Section 30 of the Act, Rural Development Board was abolished and the employees thereof became the employees of PDBF. As per provision of Section 29 of the Act Service Regulations of the employees of PDBF was framed and the same were published in the Gazette on June, 26, 2001. Regulation 61(2) of the Service Regulations, 2001 provides for termination of an employee of PDBF either by serving 3 months notice or in lieu thereof on payment of basic salary of 3 months. Writ-petitioner's service was terminated by PDBF by the office order dated September 3, 2001 offering them basic salary for 3 months' notice period and other benefits. Thereupon the writ-petitioners filed respective 'writ petition challenging legality of Regulation 6-1(2) of the Service Regulations, 2001 and the office order terminating their service contending primarily that the Regulation 61(2) of the Service Regulations, 2001 is ultra vires of the fundamental right as guaranteed in Articles 27 and 29 of the Constitution. It was also contended that Regulation 61(2) being prohibitory provision cannot be considered as regulation since it has taken away the right of the writ-petitioners in the employment of PDBF. It was the case of PDBF that as the writ-petitions have been filed after long lapse of time, the Rules obtained therein are liable to be discharged on the ground of delay and laches. It was also the contention that since the writ-petitioners have claimed that they are workers within the meaning of Section2 (XXVIII) of the Industrial Ordinance, 1969 they are required to seek their redress against their respective order of termination before the Labour Court and having not done so the Rules obtained by the respective writ-petitioners are liable to be discharged. It was also the contention of PDBF that the writ-petitioners were purely temporary employees under Rural Development Board and as such their service was liable to be terminated as per terms and conditions of their letter of appointment by giving notice. Lastly it was submitted that since service regulations for the employees of PDBF have been framed and as the same have been given effect to and therein provision having been made for termination the service of the employees of the category of writ-petitioners either by giving 3 months notice or in lieu thereof on payment of basic salary of 3 months and as such provision of regulation 61(2) cannot be considered as violative of fundamental right.

(3.) In reply to the contention of the writ-respondent it was submitted on behalf of the writ-petitioners that though in the writ-petitions it has been stated that the writ-petitioners are workers within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, but PDBF never considered itself as an industry and that in writ petition No. 2807 of 2002, the High Court Division has held that PDBF comes within the definition of 'industry' but the decision in the aforesaid writ petition is under appeal and as such, it has not been finally decided that PDBF is an 'industry' and its employees are workers, the writ-petitioners cannot go to the Labour Court to seek relief against their order of termination. It was also the contention of the writ petitioner that the delay occurred as they prayed for review of the order of termination and in that process there was delay in filing the writ petition.