1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.‑

These are three petitions in which the common grievance of the petitioners is that their services were terminated by the respondent National Bank, Pakistan in contravention of their Service rules and the prayer in each. petition is to set aside the order terminating the petitioner's Services and for a declaration that the petitioners continue to be in the service of the respondent Bank and are entitled. to all benefits of their service.

2. On behalf of the petitioners it was conceded that they were contractual employees and their terms and conditions of service were not guaranteed by the Constitution. It was, however, argued that if it was demonstrated that the petitioners services were terminated not in accordance with the Service Rules of the Bank, the Bank being a person within the meaning of the expression appearing in Article 98 of 1962, Constitution or Article 199 of 1973 Constitution, a writ would issue for setting aside the orders terminating their services.

3. Mr. Mansoorul Arfin, the learned counsel for the respondent bank conceded that the respondent Bank was a person within the meaning of Article 98 or Article 199 and therefore, amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, but went on to argue that writ would not be, in view of the contractual relationship between the parties and in absence of Constitutional guarantees, an appropriate remedy.

4. The law appears to us to be well settled and we may only refer to some of the decided cases. In Zainul Abdin v. Multan Central Co‑operative Bank Ltd., Multan (PLD 1966 SC 445), it was held that an Accountant in a co‑operative bank, a private autonomous institution was not an office of public nature and in case of a wrongful dismissal of such an employee a writ of mandamus would be wholly misconceived and not a proper remedy. In the case of Chairman, East Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Dacca v. The Secretary, East Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Dacca (PLD 1966 SC 848), it was held that the safe guards provided for public servants under the Constitution could not be availed of as of legal right by an employee of a statutory corporation such as the E. P. I. D. C. and a writ was not a proper remedy in the case of an employee of such Corporation seeking redress against his dismissal. In a case R. T. H. Janjua v. National Shipping Corporation (P L D 1974 S C 146), this view was reiterated by reference to several other cases in these words:‑ "On behalf of the caveator, the main argument by Mr. Muhammad Ilyas, however, was on the broad legal aspect of the question namely that the petitioner being an employee of a statutory corporation could not seek redress in writ jurisdiction of the High Court, generally available to a civil servant against his removal from service. In support of his argument, the caveator's learned counsel relied on judgments of this Court in Abdul Salam Mehta v. Chairman, Water & Power Development Authority and another 1970 S C M R 40 "Shahid Khalil v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and another P L D 1966 S C 848 The Chairman, East Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation and another v. Rustom All and another 1971 S C M R 568, Zainul Abidin v. Multan Central Co‑operative Bank Ltd., Multan P L D 1966 S C 445 and The Lahore Central Co‑operative Bank Ltd. v. Pir Saifullah Shah P L D 1959 S C

210. The broad proposition laid down in all these cases was that the Constitutional Safeguards available to the generality of Civil Servants against arbitrary dismissal or removal from service are not available to the servants of a registered company, or a statutory Corporation. The precedent cases (with the exception of the case of Pir Saifullah Shah which was the case of a Commercial Manager of a Co‑operative Bank), related to the removal from service of statutory Corporation like P. I. A. C., WAPDA and E. P. I. D. C. each of which was established by a statute, over which the Government exercised control in varying degree. In all these cases, the grievance related to alleged arbitrary dismissal from service of an employee by an incorporated company or statutory corporation in which the general law of master and servant was held applicable and it was laid down that the only remedy available to the aggrieved servant in such cases is to sue for wrongful dismissal and not a writ of mandamus or certiorari." The aforesaid view was followed by this Court in an unreported Judgment in Constitutional Petition No. 306 of 1973 (Syed Zahir Husain Rizvi v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and another decision Muhammad Azim Khan v. State Bank of Pakistan (P L D 1976 Kar. 778)).

5. The result, therefore, is that even on the assumption that the services of the petitioners were terminated in contravention of the Services Rules the proper remedy for the petitioners is not a writ but a suit for damages.

6. It was for the aforesaid reasons that we by a short order dismissed these petitions with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.