1993 PLP 716 (PLC(CS))

2. Succinctly stated the circumstances forming the background of this case are as follows.

3. The appellant had joined the respondents in 1964. In December, 1979 he was transferred to Abu Dhabi as a Senior Technician. It is alleged that in the first week of April, 1980, he had assaulted one A.S. Qureshi, a senior official at his place of duty. The matter was reported to the Head Office at Karachi and after a preliminary enquiry had been made, a show‑cause notice was issued on 23‑4‑1980 which was replied to by the p6titioner on 30‑4‑1980. Later a charge‑sheet was issued on 27‑5‑1980. The reply to the charge‑sheet was submitted by the petitioner on 14‑6‑1980, which was found to be unsatisfactory and was therefore rejected. A Regular Domestic Enquiry was ordered which was conducted by Masood Ahmed Khan, who was deputed from Karachi. The Enquiry Officer had, in due course, given his finding against the petitioner, and after personal hearing he was dismissed from service vide order, dated 27th June, 1982. Even the appeal filed before the Chairman bore no result. It was, thereafter, that the petitioner had given the grievance notice, dated 9‑8‑1982, which was followed up by the grievance petition, dated 12‑9‑1982, before the IV Sindh Labour Court at Karachi.

4. The allegations came to be denied by the, respondents. It was further alleged. that the petition itself was not competent in view of the applicability of the provisions of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952.

5. It was this contention which had prevailed with the learned Presiding Officer who, vide order dated 3‑10‑1982, dismissed the petition shortly on the ground that this Court had no jurisdiction in view of the applicability of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 to the employees of the respondent Corporation. This order was challenged in appeal which also failed by decision, dated 3‑11‑1982.

6. The appellant then filed a Constitution petition but it appears that it came to be dismissed on the same ground. The counsel appearing for the appellant, it would appear, was absent at the time of hearing and he had filed an application for review on the ground that the view of the Supreme Court in K.E.S.C. Ltd. v. N.I.R.C. and others PLD 1982 Supreme Court 103, on which the appellant had lost all the rounds had been departed from by a recent judgment namely Pakistan Television Corporation v. Babar Zaman and others ,1989 SCMR 1549.

7. The review application was allowed, the earlier order, dated 9‑3‑1989, came to be reversed and the case came up to be remanded to the Labour Court for a fresh disposal according to law.

8. Witnesses came to be examined by the parties. The Labour Court dismissed the grievance application on the ground that the petitioner being in Pay Group V, section 1(3)(c) of the I.R.O. read with the Notification No.SRO‑896(1)/76 came in his way and the petition was not maintainable. The Notification reads as under: "SRO‑896(1)/76.‑‑‑In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (3) of section 1, of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969), the Federal Government, in the public interest and in the interest of security of the airlines, is pleased to specify all persons employed in the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation drawing wages in pay groups not lower than Group V as the persons to whom the said Ordinance shall not apply."

9. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, contended that the appellant had been maliciously removed from service and even the enquiry cannot be said to have been free from all bias. He also contended that the appellant in spite of his being placed in the Pay Group V, had remained working with his hands as a Mechanic. All this need not be dilated upon, as per clause (c) of subsection (3) of section 1 "all the members of the Security Staff of the PIAC, or others t1rawing wages in such pay groups not lower than Group V in the establishment of the Corporation as the Federal Government may in the public interest or in the interest of the Security of the Airlines by Notification in the Official Gazette specify, could not invoke the provisions of the Ordinance. The cloak of immunity which had been placed is as inviolable as in the other clauses dealing with the members of the Police or the Defence Services or the establishment maintained for the treatment of the sick, infirm, destitute etc. etc.

10. But the matter does not end here. The P.I.A. is a Statutopry Corporation having its own regulations. It has been held in the case of Riazuddin v. Chairman, Pakistan International Airlines PLD 1992 SC 531 that the employees of the PIA do not have the safeguards which a civil servant enjoys under the Constitution. The relationship subsisting between the Corporation and its employees is that of a master and servant and the only remedy available to an aggrieved employee is that he can claim damages. The remedy from the Labour Court can only be sought in case there is any breach of any rule or regulation. There is a string of authorities in which the same view has been taken (See Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan PLD 1984 SC 194.

11. No such breach of the rule has been pointed out. What is more, at the material time section 10 of the P.IA.C. Act, 1956 was still in existence and it was not open to the employees of the P.I.A. to seek remedy from the Labour Court ‑‑ the deletion of section 10 came only on the 2nd of November, 1989.

12. That being the state of law there is no merit in this appeal. I will, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2190/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.