2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The petitioner, an employee of the Habib Bank Limited, was dismissed from service vide order dated 1-1-1998. He approached the learned Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No.314/L of 1998 which was allowed vide order dated 10-2-2000 and the penalty of dismissal from service was converted into forfeiture of three annual increments for a period of three years. The said order is not being implemented and, through this Constitutional petition, a direction is accordingly sought to respondent No.5 Zonal Chief. Habib Bank Limited, Sargodha.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.5 is under a legal obligation to act in accordance with the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal and to take back the petitioner on duty but this not being done. Reliance is being placed on Khalid Mehmood, Inspector Police, Rawalpindi Range, Rawalpindi v. Inspector-General of Police Punjab, Lahore and another (PLJ 1998 Lah. 1606), and S. Inamul Haq v. The Secretary. Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan (1983 CLC 1954) to contend that in the said cases, a direction was issued for implementation of the judgments of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal and the learned Federal Service Tribunal respectively.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.5 has submitted that the said respondent is not a "person" within the contemplation of Article 199 and, therefore, no writ can be issued: According to him, notwithstanding Nationalization of the Habib Bank it continues to remain a body corporate and an independent entity. It is not a, Government department so as to be amenable to the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. He next contended that under Article 187 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, this Court can only direct implementation of the judgment of the Supreme Court but Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be exercised to direct implementation of the judgment of the learned Federal Service Tribunal. He next contended that the matter relates to the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner and, therefore, Article 212 of the Constitution bars the jurisdiction of this Court. He next contended that against the judgment of the learned Service Tribunal a petition for leave to appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, the petitioner can make an application before the said learned Court for the relief claimed through this petition. In support of this submissions reliance is being placed on Badaruddin. H. Mavani v. Messrs Commerce Bank Ltd. (PLD 1975 Karachi 182). Inayatullah Narejo v. The United Bank Ltd. of Pakistan and 7 others (1988 CLC 1446) and Tanvir Iqbal Siddiqui v. The Principal Overseas Pakistan Foundation (OPF), Girls College, Islamabad (1994 SCMR 958).

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the Habib Bank was nationalized under the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974 and although it continued to retain the status of an incorporate company, yet the ownership, management and control of the Bank stood vested in the Federal Government. A similar question was raised in M/s. Sandal Fibres Limited v. Government of Pakistan and 7 others (PLD 1992 Lah. 400). It was held that a Constitutional petition against a Nationalized Bank was maintainable. In Karam Hussain v. Daily Mashriq and 2 others (1992 PLC 136) National Press Trust, A Private Limited Company controlled by the Federal Government under the provisions of National Press Trust Ordinance, 1960 was held to be an instrument/agency of the Federal Government and, therefore, amenable to Constitutional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the first contention that no writ or direction can be issued to respondent No.5 has no merit.

5. As far as the contention based on Article 187 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is concerned, it has no merit either. The Federal Service Tribunal has been constituted in pursuance of the command of Article 212 of the Constitution and has exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the terms and conditions of the service of a civil servant. A judgment rendered by the learned Federal Service Tribunal is binding on the departmental authorities. The judicial system will be reduced to a clap trap if the departmental authorities are left free to implement or not to implement a judgment of the learned Service Tribunal. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is fully supported by the cases of Khalid Mehmood (supra) and S. Inamul Haq (supra) a judgment by a learned Division Bench of this Court which I respectfully follow.

6. The contention of learned counsel for respondent No.5 that Article 212 bars the jurisdiction of this Court has not impressed me either because after having succeeded before the learned Federal Service Tribunal the petitioner cannot be directed to again approach the learned Federal Service Tribunal. There is no order in existence against which the petitioner could take the matter before the learned Service Tribunal. It may also be added that the learned Service Tribunal have no jurisdiction either to direct implementation of their judgments and orders. This is the view taken by the learned Service Tribunal in their order dated 8-2-2000 passed -on a miscellaneous application seeking implementation of their judgment in appeal No.244/L of 1998. A similar objection was raised before this Court in the case of Khalid Mehmood (supra) and it was repelled.

7. As far as the contention that the matter is .pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a petition for Special Leave to Appeal and the petitioner may be directed to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court is concerned, it is equally untenable. Mere filing of the petition for leave to appeal did not operate to stay the operation of tire judgment of the learned Service Tribunal. It was so held in the case of S. Inamul Haq (supra).

8. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for respondent No.5 have been examined. None support, the pleas advanced by him. The case of Badaruddin H. Mavani (supra) arose out of a money decree obtained by the appellant in the said case against the Commerce Bank. While disposing of the miscellaneous application the learned Karachi High Court observed that despite Nationalization the said bank continued to exist as a legal person and, therefore, the contracts entered into by the bank need not be executed by a Secretary of the Federal Government, in terms of Article 173 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In the case of Inayat Ullah Narejo (supra) an employee of the United Bank had challenged his order of dismissal. The writ petition w2held to be incompetent as the services of the employee were found to be not governed by any statutory rules. In the case of Tanvir- Iqbal Siddiqui (supra) an employee of Overseas Pakistan Foundation had challenged the order of his termination. The writ petition was dismissed and the said order was maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

9. For what has been stated above, this writ petition is allowed with costs and respondent No.5 is directed to implement the judgment of the learned Federal Service Tribunal and to allow the petitioner to resume duty. This will be done within one month from today. H.B.T./G-58/ Petition allowed.