1983 PLP 21 (SCMR)

SHAFI‑UR‑REHMAN, J.‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court's Appeal Bench dated 12‑5‑1981 whereby the Intra‑Court Appeal was dismissed as incompetent. The respondents in the two petitions were promoted to various offices, by the petitioners‑Bank. The promotion order was, it is said, acted upon and given effect to. Subsequently, it was cancelled without hearing them or affording them an opportunity of showing cause. They challenged the action by 'instituting a constitutional petition. A learned Judge of the Lahore High Court allowed both the petitions declaring the acts of the petitioners to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and maintaining the promotions learned by the respondents. The petitioners' Intra‑Court Appeals failed on the ground that under the rules applicable to the employees of the petitioner‑Bank then had a right of appeal or review available. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the same learned Judge in an identical case relating to the establishment of the petitioners (Writ Petition No. 1694‑S of 1y79) held that the Lahore High Court had no jurisdiction in the matter as the record had to be called for from Karachi and the orders of reversion were passed at Karachi. Without adverting to that decision the learned Judge overruled the objection of the petitioners to the jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court. It is further contended that the respondents being not holders of a statutory post or having statutory tenure of service, could not avail of the constitutional jurisdiction for restoration to a particular office or avoiding the impugned order. Reliance is placed upon R. T. H. Janjua v. National Shipping Corporation (P L D 1974 S C 146). Finally it is contended that if the service rules of the petitioners‑Bank enjoyed the force of a statute then the constitutional petitions of the respondents themselves were not competent as they had to exhaust the departmental remedy which was adequate in the circumstances. It appears that the learned Judge relied on the various decisions of this very Court for holding at one time that the Lahore High Court had no jurisdiction and at another that the Lahore High Court had jurisdiction in the matter. The facts and law being identical though the parties were different this variance necessitates an authoritative pronouncement on the question of territorial jurisdiction. It also requires consideration whether persons who are employed by statutory corporations and do not hold a statutory post nor enjoy statutory tenure of service could avail of the remedies provided under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with the relevant provisions of the Provisional Constitu tion Order for enforcing their rights arising out of rules and bye‑laws framed by the statutory bodies themselves. Leave to appeal is therefore granted. Rs. 25,003 in each case to be the security. The impugned orders of the Lahore High Court dated 22‑12‑79 and 16‑12‑79 are suspended in the mean while. The appeals to be made ready on present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if they consider necessary. Appeal granted.