3. Re: IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE BETWEEN T&T/PTC & PTCL EMPLOYEES.
Dear Maqbool Sb.
On Saturday, 1 October 2016, syed maqbool hussain zaidi <smhzptcl@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Sent from Rawalpindi Pakistan via iPad
There is no such contract agreement between two parties in VSS case in accordance law of contract when two parties sit together and make contract agreement in proper stamp paper . There are only conditions in VSS documet papers , given to each PTCL is employee after declaring them first you are not needed, surplus, redundant etc having conditions that pensions will be given for the employees having twenty years minimum observations.Where previously , when VSS given in 1997-1998 , no such conditions were given . Because it was understood and law that on the retirement , a civil servant is always entitled of pension or graduaty [ Section -19(1) of terms & conditions of service given in Civil Servant Act 1973] , whatever may be the mode of retirement ie compulsory, due to death & or voluntery etc. Since till 25 years of qualified service, neither govt servant is prematured retired by the authority concerned nor the govt servant is authorised to get premature retirement before 25 years qualified service. If any govt dept, authority wants to retire govt employees due reason of surplus, they should offer them a package for their voluntery retirement from service. But they can not dbbare them for getting monthly pension, which are their litigimate rights ,being the govt servant. It is law , and no one is legally authorised to to ignore it by not granting pensions due to any reasons what ever may be.
PTCL was was not legally authorised to impose such conditions , on such PTCL employees having statutory rules provisions of GoP [as per verdicts of SCP in Masood Bhattie case 2012 SCMR 152 PTCL, has no power to alter the terms and conditions of service of such PTCL employees for their disadvantage ]. for granting pensions on twenty years minimum service by changing minimum period of service for pension from minimum ten years [ Section-474-AA of GSR] to twenty years .Where PTCL are also not authorised to declare such PTCL employees not needed, redundants etc Where in case of declaring them surplus, the PTCL should absorb them in lower posts with same salary as of before absorption. Also ito adjust n other vacant post of same grade subject to having qualifications , conditions required for such other post [ Section 11(a) of Civil Servant Act 1973. This section was inserted in the terms and conditions of service mentioned in Section -3 to Section-22 of Civil Servant Act -1973 , by the Ord No XX of 2001 on 14th April 2001]
For your information on the above basis as I narrated above, the IHC has accepted the writ many writ petitions of all such aggrieved PTCL employees to whom pension were not given in VSS-2008 inspite of having minimum qualified service ten years, and more but less then twenty years. The question before the court why such conditions for granting pensions to such employees having statutory rules provisions of GoP were given/impose in Vss and under what rules of GoP they declared them redundants, not needed etc. IHC issued notices to PTCL in June-16 for submitting their reply within two weeks , for starting proceedings further but till date the PTCL unable to give reply.Although reminders wer also issued. I, think the PTCL has no ansawer of it. All their such plea that all such employees are employees of PTCL and company rules and regulations are applicable to them not if GoP, are manay times rejected by higher courts and also so by Supreme Court the verdicts of HSC in Raja Riaz case reported in 2015 SCMR 1783, for which the review appeal PTCL is also dismissed by thre member bench in August 2015, is an ample example.
Regards
Tariq
01-10-2016
On Saturday, 1 October 2016, syed maqbool hussain zaidi <smhzptcl@gmail.com> wrote:
AoA
In Courts PTCL takes plea that VSS was being offered to employees under Law of Contract. Under the law of contract parties can freely entered into any agreement/settlement with certain conditions. In the past there were golden hand shake schemes (now VSS) in so many departments. The employees had given option to avail all in service and post retirement benefits in one go and leave the organizations for good. Therefore, in my opinion those who had opted VSS on their own free will and sold out their entire service including post retirement benefits such as pension, medical facilities would have no remedy available to them for restoration of pension.However, there is strong case of EOBI pension. PTCL was registered under Company Ordinance 1984 wef 1.1.1996 and as per HSC verdict PTCL has to pay EOBI contribution toward employees EOBI pension fund. I think review by PTCL is pending in Supreme Court. I suggest vss opetees non-pensioners must file petitions for EOBI pension and PTCL will have to pay EOBI contribution with effect from 1.1.1996.This is however, my own opinion and suggestion. I pray the best for VSS non pensioners in their cases, if any law permits.Regards,Maqbool Zaidi
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Tariq Azhar <azhar.tariq@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Zadi Sb
Be sure it is just lolly pop from PTCL you may believe or not.Athough their review appeal against Masood Bhattie case 2012SCMR152 dismissed by 5 memmber HSC bench but they are not accepting that the transferred employees from PTC on 1-1-1996 in PTCL should governed by the statutory rules of GoP. HSC asked from the PTCL in Sadiq Ali cotempt case to give the reason why HSC order of dated 12-6-2015 is not implemented ( Sadiq Ali contempt case has been clubbed with their review petition against the order HSC of dated 12-6-16 ). In last hearing of their review petition probbebly in May-16, when review ptetion was being adjourned by the special bench for this purpose, due to leave application of their council Mr Khalid Anwar , this question was raised by the council of Sadiq Ali that why PTCL is not implementing the HSC order of dated 12-6-12 ie increase of pension as pr announcement of GoP as of their civil govt pensioners as no any stay by the court granted had been granted to the PTCL ) In reply which (the WhatsApp copy of the same is with me also,.See my topic Reply on my blogs site at tariqazhar.blogspot.com ) submitted by Adv on record on be half of PTCL ,in which firstly PTCL insisted that such PTCL employees do not have any statutory rules provision and such increse in pension will be the responsibility of PTET not of GoP. And in last the PTCL intimated that they are not such huge money of Rs 22 billions for the payment of increase pension arrears and requested not to take any adverse action against theme. So do you believe that they will decide such petitioners cases in positive as per GoP, it is absolutely impossible, I have much.As I told preciously that they will submitt the report after six month that they had correctly retired all such peteionners without pension as per rules and regulations of PTC. Let the SHC decide the case on merits. And I don't think that SHC will decide in favour of such PTCL VSS Rtd non pensioners. (It is record that and I know very that rarely SHC give decision against PTCL.)If at all the decesion of SHC comes in favour of such PTCL non pensioners. Then you will see that how much time the PTCL take to implement (as it did in our pensioners case which was decided in our favour by IHC single bench in Nov 2011 but still not implemented till date by PTCL) . Further more with great respect to you , you himself wrongly pleaded the case PTCL non pensioner case , as I came to know from many non pensioners PTCL vss retired employees belongs to Karachi that prior to Msood Bhattie case and also after the Masood Bhattie case, when those non pensioners approached to you for file their writ petitions that inspite of having their qualified service twenty years or more then twenty years ( which was the criteria of PTCL for the grant of pension to the VSS retiree. Which was obsloutly un law full ) but they were not granted pension on VSS retirement, as PTCL unlawfully reduced their qualified service for pension to less then twenty years. So you pleaded the case on the basis that reducing the qualified service less then twenty years were unlaw full. Which means that you accepted that criteria for twenty years qualified service of a PTCL employee having a status of Civil Servant fixed by PTCL was lawfull and correct. Where as per verdict of HSC in Masood Bhattie case that PTCL has no such power to alter the terms and conditions of such PTCL employees transferred from PTC to PTCL on 1-1-1996 for their disadvantages.So, how on what authority the PTCL increased the minimum qualifying service period from Ten years to Twenty years of such PTCL employees.In March 2008 every such employee, who was previously employee of PTC, had qualifying service not ten but more then ten years.Even if PTCL had unlawfully reduced the period of qualifying service of less then twenty years even then also such retired PTCL employee under VSS , was entitled for pension. Many of them also told me that three to four years had been elapsed but no any progress in the court ie in SHC still had been done ( these were told to me in March -16 when I motivated all such non pension retired PTCL officials to get their litigimate right of pension. They were ignorant of such facts) . So I always advised them I'd the such non PTCL pensioners belongs to Sindh try to file the cases in IHC Islamabad instead of SHC . As IHC is new one, not so much busy as other high courts, its jurisdiction is small , any person from any province of Pakistan can file his case in IHC if other party is related to Islamabad or its location is in Islamabad and most positive thing, its records of proceedings. I observed, for PTCL grievances cases, the IHC record 90% in favour of PTCL employees.
I don't want further debate on it but only want to inform you about my observations, opinions etc.Let us see what would be the out put after six month affirmative or otherwise from PTCLRegardsTariq
On Friday, 30 September 2016, Ansar Z <ansar-z@hotmail.com> wrote:
BY this Order PTCL took responsibility to decide these cases in accordance with Law Rules and Regulation after HSC judgment of 5 member bench (2016 SCMR 1362)what option PTCL does have to deviate from settled proposition of law, rules and regulation of transferred employees. You consider 6 months time as delay tactics & lolly pops what about time wasted for more than 8 years by the employees who have now an order of the Court to fight for their right. It is better something in hand than nothing let PTCL come out with their submission before the Court and Honorable Court will decide the issue on merit in case of denial by PTCL
CE OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE BETWEEN T&T/PTC & PTCL EMPLOYEES.
To: azmat.abbassi@gmail.com
CC: smhzptcl@gmail.com; a4ausaf@yahoo.com; aaamir06@gmail.com; abmajid64@yahoo.com; abiddce@gmail.com; afroz.alam@hotmail.com; aftab.surhio@yahoo.com; ahson.ptcl@gmail.com; ahussain.qadri@gmail.com; akhtar.malik@yahoo.com; aladel2002pk@yahoo.co.uk; alirehman_lhr@yahoo.com; alishan.soomro@yahoo.com; paktelecomlabourunion@gmail.com; amerbilal@gmail.com; amir.bhutto@yahoo.com; anilpinjani@hotmail.com; anwarbhatti42@yahoo.com; arshad_2233@hotmail.com; aslam.siddiqi@gmail.com; asrarbg@yahoo.com; azeem.anr@gmail.com; azeemkhan1036@gmail.com; azeem.khan886@yahoo.com; azizmoinuddin2003@gmail.com; aziz45aziz@gmail.com; azizullah.malik@yahoo.com; baitullah.kharani@gmail.com; banuhashim5@gmail.com; baseer.tahir@yahoo.com; bashir.daudpoto@gmail.com; bilal.younis30@yahoo.com; bjn9141@gmail.com; emailakhtar@yahoo.com; faisal.chohan@hotmail.com; faizurrehman1212@gmail.com; farid.ptcl@hotmail.com; ghafoor.bhutto@gmail.com; Ghazni413@gmail.com; haiderhasnain01@gmail.com; haider1966@hotmail.com; hammadabbasi3993@gmail.com; imrankhanlego@gmail.com; iqbal_6722003@yahoo.com; Irtiza.nisar@yahoo.com; jamil.akhterr@yahoo.com; mjawaidptcl@gmail.com; kamaldurrani1@yahoo.com.ph; kashifmmcdsl@gmail.com; kashifptcl@yahoo.com; khansaleem69@yahoo.com; khara.sach@channel24.pk; khurshidalam@hotmail.co.uk; kshakeel@ymail.com; lauqaili@hotmail.com; liaquat97@yahoo.com; lubnakhalid252@yahoo.com; mtariqahmed86@gmail.com; m.aqil111@hotmail.com; mahu_4@yahoo.com; malik.ptcl@gmail.com; bhatti.masood@gmail.com; maqazi.ptcl@gmail.com; moeen2009@googlemail.com; mkhursheed1@gmail.com; mohammadsalman999@gmail.com; mr.bhutto@hotmail.com; imran_257800@yahoo.com; ahmad.muhammad04@gmail.com; sadaat56@gmail.com; bhaiharoon@gmail.com; azam2kster@gmail.com; muhammadiqbalptcl1@gmail.com; mshakeel1971@gmail.com; muhammadwaseem65@yahoo.com; muhammadzahid98@yahoo.com; mujahidbhopali@gmail.com; mumtazalishaikh@hotmail.com; munemkhan@hotmail.com; murtaza.asad@yahoo.com; muzaffarjafri@gmail.com; n.a_qureshi@hotmail.com; nadeem.ahmedptcl@yahoo.com; nadeemzia2001@yahoo.com; chnaeemsdk@gmail.com; snaeem_1969@yahoo.com; najeeb.rehman1@gmail.com; najeeb.rehmanptcl@gmail.com; najm2099@hotmail.com; tariqnaseer.ptcl@gmail.com; naseerahmedawan71@gmail.com; ghorinasir@gmail.com; tariqaziz.houth@gmail.com; nawazmahar@hotmail.com; niazkhaskheli@gmail.com; ptcl.officersassociation@gmail .com; pteucba@yahoo.com; qarije@yahoo.com; rana.waheedkhan@yahoo.com; rizwanptcl@yahoo.com; saeedbhatti17@gmail.com; salahuddin.shahab@gmail.com; saleem496@gmail.com; famazsani@gmail.com; sardar.aurangzeb@gmail.com; shahjahan.khan85@yahoo.com; shakeel2470@yahoo.com; shamimalampk786@yahoo.com; shamim_ptu@yahoo.com; shamimgsn@gmail.com; shamshadptcl@gmail.com; shaukatali.ptcl@gmail.com; sm.zakaria@yahoo.com; ammaar.jafrey@gmail.com; jaffar14pk@gmail.com; hasan.telcom@gmail.com; smakhtar.ptcl@gmail.com; syed_naqvi652000@yahoo.com; callzia1@gmail.com; syedtariqnaseer@gmail.com; tariq.naseer@ymail.com; tathir.abbas@yahoo.com; waheedkhan10@yahoo.com; waheedmsjankayani@hotmail.com; wajid.hashmi6069@gmail.com; masood.waseem@gmail.com; yasin.gadit@gmail.com; zafar.imam1973@yahoo.com; zahidch111@yahoo.com; zahidnaggi@gmail.com; zaidiptcl@gmail.com; zair99999@hotmail.com; zulfiqarptcl@yahoo.com; khurshidahmed193@yahoo.com; ansar-z@hotmail.com
On what law , rules and regulations PTCL will settle the case within six month.It is not clerified from the order of SHC as given in below taxt . I think it is just a delay tactics & loly pops from PTCL under taking. After six months PTCL will submit report to the court that according to their rules and regulations they correctly retired all such petitioners without pension. What will the next at that time?????In my opinion the SHC should issue direct order ( in a way as directed by IHC on writ petition of non CBA# WP.2684/2012 PTCL on the date 17-5-2016 to grant of all emoluments as of GoP to all such employees in PTCL employees being governed by statutory rules of GoP) for restoration of pensions within such and such period , of all such Vss non pensioners from the date of retirement ,in accordance rules and regulations of Govt Pakistan , as all such non pensionary retired VSS PTCL employees were being governed by statutory rules of GoP and PTCL had no power to increase their minimum period 10 years to twenty years for the grant of pension.Such act of PTCL was cruel one.Where also as per Section19(1) of Civil Servant Act 1973 , a civil servant is entitled of pension on retirement (whatever be the mode of retirement) . Where as per Section 474-AA of Govt Service Rules the minimum qualified service for pension is 10 years.RegardsTariq
On Thursday, 29 September 2016, Azmatullah Abbassi <azmat.abbassi@gmail.com> wrote:
AzmatRegardsNext group is under process of filing petitions. Any one interested to join may contact Cell # 0333-2101014. Inform to allDear AllSyed Ansar Hussain Zaidi Advocate High Court got the decision in 237 writ petitions from High Court of Sindh in favour of transferred employees who were having service of 10 year but less than 20 years and denied pensionary benefits in VSS. Th PTCL has given undertaking to settle their issues within 6 months in accordance with law, rules and regulations.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:31 PM, syed maqbool hussain zaidi <smhzptcl@gmail.com> wrote:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES APPOINTED AFTER 01.01.1996 IN PTCL ARE ALSO PROTECTED UNDER LAW/ACT.Before privatization upto the limit of 26% shares, all employees were equal and were enjoying all benefits and perks without any discrimination. All are permanent and regular employees. There should not be any discrimination under Article-25 of the Constitution of Pakistan.Before privatization all unions including CBA and PTCL management has signed a lawful Settlement. Relevant para of Term No.1 of the Settlement is here under:-"The terms and conditions of the employment shall remain as per the existing provisions of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization)Act, 1996 (Section 35 & 36).Effect of the Settlement and above para under the provisions of Industrial Relations Act, 2012:-Section 49 - Settlement and awards on whom binding. (c) be binding on the heirs, successors or assignees of the employer in respect of the establishment.(d) where a collective bargaining agent is one of the parties to the dispute, be binding on all workmen who were employed in the establishment on the date which the dispute first arose are who are employed therein after that date.INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 2012:Section-64 (2) ...................However, the terms and conditions of employment secured by the workers through collective bargaining agreements, awards and decisions of Courts shall continue to be binding upon the parties until revised for betterment of workers.Question: Can the new buyer of Company's controlling share (Etisalat and present Management) change the terms and conditions of service of employees?SHAREHOLDER AGREEMENT:16.1 The Investor undertakes to GOP to procure that:(a) all existing benefits of the employees of the Company shall not be changed, varied or discontinued to the detriment of employees.............................. For avoidance of doubt, nothing in this sub-clause shall prevent the Company from transferring the service of employees to contracts of employment by mutual consent. It is clear that the terms and conditions OF all employees are protected and secured under law whether they are statutory OR non-statutory as secured by them under Acts/Laws and Agreement between Govt. of Pakistan & Etisalat.
Best Regards,
Maqbool Zaidi
--
Sent from Rawalpindi Pakistan via iPad
--
Sent from Rawalpindi Pakistan via iPad
--
Sent from Rawalpindi Pakistan via iPad
Comments