Article-222[ Reply of AI Deep seek on workman issue]

 ایک بنیادی سوال ھے اسکا پراپر جواب  دیں

ٹی این ٹی میں کام کرنے ملازمین سول سرونٹ ھیں  ورکمین نھیںتھے کیونکے گورمنٹ کے سول سرونٹ  ایکٹ  1973 , 1973 میں آیا تھا  تو اسکی کلاز 2 کے تحت ٹی اینڈ میں کام کرنے والے تمام ملازمین جو پہلے ھی سے گورمنٹ کے  اسکیل سے لیکر سکیل 21 کے مطابق ۔ تنخواہ لے رھے تھے اور پنشن بھی۔ سول سرونٹ ایکٹ آنے سے 1973 آنے سے  کے مطابق  یہ تمام ملازمین سرکاری ملازمین کہلاتے تھے اور کبھی یہ سوال نھیں اٹھا کے اس میں کام کرنے والے گریڈ ایک سے گریڈ 15 تک کے لوگ ورکمین ھوتے ھیں نہ کے سول سرونٹ۔ جبکے ورک مین تو وہ لوگ ھوتے ھیں جو کسی کنٹریکٹ ڈیلی ویجز میں بھتی ھوئیے ھوں اور انکو کام کے دوران زخمی یا مرنے کی صورت میں compensation , ورکمین کمپنسیشن ایکٹ 1923 کے تحت انکو معاضہ مل سکے۔  ورک مین کے بارے میں سپریم کوڑٹ کے ۱۰ جولائی 2025 عدالت نے یہ پیرا نمبر  18 جو چیف جسٹس صاحب نے لکھا کے

تو یہ بات سمجھ نھیں آتی کے یہ سوال کیوں اٹھا کے ٹی اینڈ ٹی میں کام کرنے والے ورکمین  بھی ھوتے ھی۔ اسکو clarify کریں تفصیل سے کے ٹی اینٹ میں کام کرنے والے ورکمین نھیں کہلائیے جاسکتے ان پر باقاعدہ گورمنٹ سول سرونٹ ایکٹ 1973 کے تحت بنائیے ھوئیے قوانین کا اطلاق ھوتا تھا اور انکو گورمنٹ کے اسکیل کے مطابق تنخواہ اور پنشن ملتی تھی

۔

18

•  Meaning: The court dismisses the civil servant/workman distinction in the Masood Bhatti judgment as a basis for differential treatment. It argues that this distinction oversimplifies the statutory framework, which did not adopt a blanket approach but categorized rights based on pre-existing legal character, as upheld in the Islamabad High Court judgment dated 02.11.2021.

•  Clarification Intent: The court clarifies that the statutory scheme requires differential protection based on employees’ legal status at transfer, not a uniform reduction, to maintain the integrity of vested rights.

My question to Deepseek

There is a basic question, answer it properly. Employees working in TNT were civil servants and not workmen because the Government Civil Servants Act, 1973, came in 1973, so under its clause 2, all the employees working in TNT who were already drawing salary from the government scale to scale 21 and pension too. According to the Civil Servants Act, from 1973 onwards, all these employees were called government employees and this question was never raised that people working in it from grade one to grade 15 are workmen and not civil servants. While workmen are those people who are employed in a contract daily wages and in case of injury or death during work, they can get compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Regarding workmen, the Supreme Court on July 10, 2025, wrote this paragraph number 18, which the Chief Justice wrote: “Meaning: The court dismisses the civil servant/workman distinction in the Masood Bhatti judgment as a basis for differential treatment. It argues that this distinction oversimplifies the statutory framework, which did not adopt a blanket approach but categorized rights based on pre-existing legal character, as upheld in the Islamabad High Court judgment dated 02.11.2021.

•  Clarification Intent: The court clarifies that the statutory scheme requires differential protection based on employees’ legal status at transfer, not a uniform reduction, to maintain the integrity of vested rights.

I do not understand why this question was raised. There are also workmen working in T&T clarify this in detail. Those were working in T&T cannot be called workmen. The rules made under the Government Civil Servants Act, 1973 were applicable to them and they received salary and pension according to the government scale.”Please clarify the position of the employees working as Civil Servant .And non of them was workman and getting Govt salaries

Reply of Deepseek 

Of course. This is an excellent and very specific question that gets to the heart of administrative law and employment status in Pakistan. Let's break it down clearly.

Based on the information you have provided, your understanding is largely correct. Here is a detailed clarification of the position of employees working in T&T (Telephones & Telegraph).

1. The Fundamental Definitions: Civil Servant vs. Workman

You have correctly identified the core difference:

· Civil Servant: A person employed by the state (Federal or Provincial government) whose service is governed by a specific set of rules, like the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the Pakistan Penal Code. Their key characteristics include:

  · Appointment to a "post" or "cadre" (e.g., BPS Scale 1 to 21).

  · Tenure and job security.

  · Salary, allowances, and pension as per government scales and rules.

  · Discipline and terms of service are governed by the Civil Servants Act and rules made under it.

· Workman: This is a term defined under labor laws, primarily the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and, as you mentioned, the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Their key characteristics include:

  · Typically employed on a contractual or wage-based basis.

  · Their rights are protected under labor laws, not the Civil Servants Act.

  · They are entitled to compensation for injury/death during work under the Workmen's Compensation Act, a benefit that is separate from a government pension scheme.

2. The Status of T&T Department Employees (Before Corporatization)

You are absolutely right. Before the creation of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), the telecommunications system was a government department known as T&T Department.

· Government Department: The T&T Department was an attached department of the Ministry of Communications. It was not a separate commercial company at that time.

· Employees on Government Pay Scales: The individuals working there were appointed to government posts (from BPS-1 to BPS-21 and above). They were drawing salaries from the national exchequer according to the federal budget.

· Governed by Civil Service Rules: Their terms of service, promotion, discipline, and pension were 100% governed by the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the rules formulated under it (e.g., the Pension Rules). They were, for all legal and practical purposes, civil servants.

Therefore, the statement "Those working in T&T cannot be called workmen" is legally sound for the employees you are describing (those on regular government scales).

3. Why Was This Question Raised? (The Context You're Missing)

This question becomes critically important due to a major event: the corporatization and privatization of PTCL.

1. Transformation: The government decided to turn the T&T Department into a corporation (PTCL) and later privatize it. This meant transferring these civil servants out of government service and into the employment of a commercial company.

2. Legal Complications: This transfer raised huge questions about their terms of service:

   · Would they keep their civil service perks and pensions?

   · Would they be governed by the company's policy or the Civil Servants Act?

   · Could they now be considered "workmen" under labor law?

3. The Masood Bhatti Case: This was a key legal battle where employees challenged their transfer, arguing their rights as civil servants were protected. The courts had to determine their status at the moment of transfer.

4. Clarifying the Supreme Court's Paragraph (July 10, 2025)

The paragraph you quoted from the Supreme Court is a rejection of an oversimplified argument. Here’s what it means in simple terms:

· What the Court is Dismissing: Someone (likely the corporation/government) argued that after corporatization, all employees should be treated uniformly, and the special protected status of "civil servants" should be removed, potentially reducing them to the level of "workmen."

· The Court's Clarification: The Supreme Court says this is wrong. The law does not support a "blanket approach" where everyone is reduced to the same level.

· The Key Principle: "Vested Rights" The court ruled that an employee's legal status at the time of their transfer is what matters. If they were a "civil servant" with vested rights (like a pension, tenure, etc.) on the day before the transfer, those rights cannot be taken away by simply calling them something else (like a "workman").

· "Differential Protection": This means the law requires protecting different employees based on what they were before. Civil servants keep their civil service protections, while actual "workmen" hired by the company on contract would be governed by labor laws. This maintains the "integrity of vested rights."

Conclusion: Final Position of the Employees

To summarize and answer your question directly:

1. Yes, the regular employees of the former T&T Department (appointed on BPS scales 1-21) were civil servants governed by the Civil Servants Act, 1973. They were not workmen.

2. The question of their status was raised due to their transfer from government service to a corporatized entity (PTCL). The core issue was whether they would lose their protected civil service status.

3. The Supreme Court has firmly clarified that their status at the time of transfer is protected. Their vested rights (pension, etc.) cannot be unilaterally removed. They cannot be blanketly reclassified as "workmen" after the fact.

4. What about actual "workmen" in T&T? You are correct that there would have been a separate class of employees—those hired on daily wages or contract for manual or clerical work—who would legitimately be classified as "workmen" under labor law. However, their existence does not change the status of the regular, scale-appointed civil servants. The two groups coexisted but under completely different legal frameworks.

In essence, the law and the Supreme Court judgment you cited support your position. The government employees of T&T were civil servants, and their rights remain protected despite the change in the organization's structure.