1976 PLP 924 (PLC)

5. The first proviso to section 1 of the afore-mentioned Ordinance reads as under:-- "Provided that nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to industrial and commercial establishments carried on by or under the authority of the Federal or any Provincial Government, where statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline are applicable to the workmen employed therein."

6. Section 51 of the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 (XXIII of 1960) reads as under:- "The Authority may make regulations, not inconsistent with the rules, if any, on all matters for which regulations are necessary or expedient; and such regulations shall be published in the official Gazette." Section 50 of the sail Ordinance reads as under- "The Central Govern neat play by notification in the official Gazette, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Ordinance; Provided that no rules shall be made on any of the matters specified in section 38."

8. Section 38 o the said Ordinance reads as under:- "The Authority shall lay down the procedure for the appointment of its officers, servants, experts and consultants, and the terms and conditions of their service including the constitution and management of provident fund for them, and shall be competent to take disciplinary action against them"

9. Under section 51 of the Capital Development Authority Ordinance of l960 (XXIII of 1960) the Capital Development Authority framed Service Regulations, 197.3 vide notification No. C D A-1 (14) Estab/70, January, 1973. By Regulation 1.2 of the above Regulations the employees were made subject to the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rule, 1960 anal other rules made in this behalf and enforced for the time being. According to rule 5 (l) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, where a Government servant is accused of subversion, corruptions or misconduct, the authorised officer may require him to proceed on leave or, with the app: oval of the authority; suspend him, provided that any continuation of such leave or suspension shall require approval of the authority after every three months.

10. From the above it is clear that the Capital Development Authority has its own Statutory Rules of service for workmen employed by them. Thus it is clear that Standing Orders Ordinance is not applicable and as such the respondent cannot claim any right guaranteed or secured to him under it. The action taken by the Capital Development Authority in making the respondent to proceed on leave is in accordance with the Statutory Rules framed by them and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said order was invalid.

11. The learned counsel for the respondent however, contended that the Capital Development Authority could not adopt the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Zainul Abidin v. Multan Central Co-operative Rank Limited, Multan (P L D 1966 S C 445) wherein it was observed:

"Where such a Bank has made the Punjab Civil Service Rules applicable to its employees not by virtue of any statutory provision but purely by the adoption thereof under the bye-laws of the Co-operative Bank such rules are no more than the rules laid down for the guidance of the Bank itself. These rules in such circumstances do not create any right in an employee to hold his office in accordance with them nor such rules extend the protection given to a Government Servant under the constitutional provisions."

12. This ruling has no relevancy because in the present case Capital Development Authority had adopted the Government Servants (Efficiency 6 and Discipline) Rules, by a statutory provision and not purely by the adoption under the bye-laws. (Syed Naslr Hussaln Jafri, Presiding Officer)

13. In view of the, above discussion, I accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the learned Labour Court and dismiss the petition filed by the respondent tinder section 25-A of the Ordinance.