1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Master and servant, relationship of‑‑‑Employee of statutory body‑‑‑Absence of statutory rules‑‑‑Dismissal from service for absence from duty for a period spreading over number of years‑‑‑Employee had failed to show as to which of statutory rules or provision of law had been violated by employer in terminating his services‑‑‑Relationship between parties being that of master and servant, remedy for employee would be to claim damages if he felt that the victim of wrongful dismissal‑constitutional jurisdiction could not be yoked by employee in circumstances. Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. and others 1994 SCMR 2232 rel. Fazalur Rehman Rana for Petitioner. Amanullah Jumani for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th December, 1995. ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH, J.‑‑‑This Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine on 20‑12‑1995 after hearing the learned counsel for the parties for the reasons to be recorded. These are the reasons for the order dated 20‑12‑1995. Petitioner S.M. Rashid joined the service with National Investment Trust Limited on 14‑7‑1971 and he served up to the year 1984. In the year 1984 he joined the Islamic Development Bank, Jaddah Saudi Arabia when he was selected in a interview in response to an advertisement published by Pakistani newspaper. He obtained ex‑Pakistan leave from respondent No. 1 and went to Jaddah. From Jaddah he continued sending applications to the respondent No.1 sometimes through his employers the Islamic Development Bank, Jaddah, and sometimes through the Economic Affairs Division, Islamabad, requesting for grant of deputation but at no time his request for grant of deputation was accepted by the respondent No. 1, however he continued to obtain ex‑Pakistan leave from the respondent No.

1. Finally after expiry of ex‑Pakistan leave for a period of 5 years he was issued a show‑cause notice by the respondent No. 1 in the year 1989. He was asked since he was deliberately and wilfully absenting himself from duty, cause may be shown as to why proceeding for disciplinary action may not be initiated against him. In reply to this show‑cause notice the petitioner took the stand that since he had joined Islamic Development Bank, Jaddah, when his application had been recommended and forwarded by the respondent No. 1, his period of leave should be treated as period of deputation and therefore, the show‑cause notice may be discharged against him. His explanation was not accepted and an Inquiry Officer was appointed to investigate the charge against him. As a result of that inquiry in which the petitioner participated by way of correspondence as he was out of country, it was held that the petitioner had been on unauthorised leave and disciplinary action was recommended against him. As a result of this second show‑cause notice under the rules was issued against him. In reply to which the petitioner's contention was the same. He was also given the opportunity to be heard in person. Thereafter his services were terminated. Against the order of his dismissal from the service, the petitioner also filed a Review Petition, in which he prayed for setting aside of his dismissal order and again requested for granting him deputation. He also made an alternate prayer that his resignation may be accepted with retrospective effect from the date of expiry of his ex‑Pakistan leave as i.e. 16‑3‑1989. This Review Application was made on 24‑5‑1990. The petitioner continued to serve in Jaddah and continued persisting the respondent No. 1 by issuing legal notices calling upon the respondent Nor., I to treat his ex‑Pakistan leave as deputation period and also to grant him other benefits which accrue to an employee in service. Finally when the respondent No. 1 refused to accept any of his requests, the petitioner has filed the present petition. On pre‑admission notice, the respondent No. 1 filed the comments in which he repudiated the stand taken by the petitioner and pleaded that the service of the petitioner was terminated on 17‑3‑1989 on the ground of wilfull and unauthorised absence from duty and that respondent No. 1 was a public limited company and had got its own Services Regulations, which were binding on the petitioner and that this Constitution petition was not maintainable. The lied counsel for the respondent also relied upon the case of Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. and others 1994 SCMR 2232. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 also contended that in the case of the petitioner and the respondent No. 1, there are no Statutory Services Rules. In absence of such statutory rules, it was contended that relationship between the respondent Noand the petitioner was that of master and servant and in such case jurisdiction of this Court could not be invoked under Article

199. We have given due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel and have also gone through the documents on the file with the help of learned counsel of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show as to which of the statutory rules or which of the provisions of law has been violated by the respondent No. 1 in terminating the services of .the petitioner. Guiding ourselves with the principles laid down in the case of Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. and others 1994 SCMR 2232, we feel that remedy for the petitioner would be to claim damages if he feels that he is victim of wrongful dismissal. Under these circumstances, we dismiss this petition in limine. A.A./S‑2/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.