' RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, C.J.---As identical points of law and facts are involved in both the Constitutional petitions i,e, Constitutional Petitions Nos.174/2000 and 175/2000, therefore, we intend to dispose of the same by this common order.
2. The brief facts of the case, as set up in Constitutional Petition No, 174/2000 are that respondent No,1 (Saindak Metals) is a limited company owned by the Government of Pakistan and the petitioner being a qualified Geologist joined the respondent-company in Grade-VIII as Geologist on 19-11-1990, and; subsequently he also had undergone various trainings and attended Seminars within the country and outside described in para. No,3 of the Constitutional petition. Further the case of the petitioner is that he being a qualified technical employee submitted an application for promotion to the Authority which did not consider his case for promotion, however; his superior officers recommended the case for promotion of the petitioner including the Project Director, who observed and passed remarks that the petitioner will be promoted against the vacant post in the year 1995, and subsequently; the competent authority promoted him as Senior Geologist vide office order No,4 (359) RDC/90/7663 dated 23-4-1999 but later on vide order dated 18-12-2000 the competent authority cancelled his promotion order without hearing and notice to him nor any reason for reverting him to the earlier post was assigned.
3. The facts in brief as contained in Constitutional Petition Nc.175/2000 are that respondent No,1 (Saindak Metals) is a limited Company being run under Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Government of Pakistan and the petitioner being a qualified graduate i,e, Electrical Engineer, duly registered with the Pakistan Engineering Council, joined the service of respondent No,1 as Electrical Engineer in Grade-VIII on 31-10-1991. Subsequent to the joining of Saindak Metals Ltd; hereinafter called as S.M.L he received technical training within the country and outside described in para. No,3 of the petition. According to the case of the petitioner he being qualified for the promotion, submitted application to the authority for promotion and the same was not considered, consequently; he filed Constitutional petition before this Court, during the pendency whereof representative of respondent No,1 submitted that promotion order of Mr. Zahid Hussain Zahidi would be cancelled and after completion of five years of service, the petitioner will be promoted as per rules. It has been contended in the petition that pursuant to the undertaking given on behalf of the respondent No,1 before this Court, promotion order of Mr. Zaidi was withdrawn vide office order dated 20-6-1995, and; after completion of five years of service by the petitioner, he again preferred representation before the competent authority for his promotion and lastly a legal notice was issued on 14-6-1999 calling upon the concerned to promote him, and ultimately; the competent authority vide order dated 23-11-1999 promoted the petitioner as Senior Electrical Engineer, but subsequent thereto vide office order No,6 (49) RDC/99 dated 18-2-2000 his promotion order was cancelled by the competent authority.
4. In response to the pre-admission notice issued to the respondents parawise comments have been filed in C.P. No,174 of 2000 wherein preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the relation between petitioner and respondents is that of a Master and Servant, as such; petition is not maintainable, and secondly; respondent No,1 (M/s Saindak MateIs Ltd:) is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1984 fully financed and owned by the Federal Government, therefore, all of its employees including the petitioner are civil servants within the purview of section 2A of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973, consequently; that petitioner having remedy for redressal of grievance, if any; before the appropriate Service Tribunal and thus; Constitutional petition is not competent. On merits, entitlement of the petitioner for the promotion as Senior Geologist has also been seriously contested and it has been pointed out that promotion order of the petitioner since was found to be ab initio irregular by the Board of Directors of respondent No,2 (M/s S.M Ltd:) hereinafter referred to as SML, therefore, Board of Directors in its meeting held on 17-2-2000 headed by respondent No,2 cancelled the promotion order of the petitioner.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed for respondent No,1, as well as the learned Deputy Attorney General at length. Mr. S.A.M. Quadri contended that:--
(a) action taken against the petitioner vide impugned order whereby he has been reverted to his parent post is void, without jurisdiction and mala fide as well as against the principles of natural justice because before passing of the adverse order he was neither heard nor any show-cause notice was given to him,
(b) the petitioner has been reduced in rank in violation of the law and rules, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be struck down in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction vested in the Court,
(c) even if it be treated that the petitioner is a civil servant' within the preview of section 2A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and grievance of the petitioner to be exclusively determinable by the appropriate Service Tribunal, yet; under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan it can be competently and lawfully determined as to Whether the petitioner is entitled to hold a particular post i,e, to which he was earlier promoted.
' The learned counsel to supplement his contentions placed reliance on the reported judgments i,e, 1994 SCM R 2232 and 1998 SCM R 850.
6. Mr. M. Riaz Ahmed, contended that Respondent No,1 is a private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1984 and the relation. Between the parties is governed by the rule of Master and Servant, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable, and secondly; petitioner being his 'civil servant' in view of provisions of section 2A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 cannot invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of the Court in the matter relating to the terms and conditions of his service falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the appropriate Service Tribunal, consequently; jurisdiction of all other Courts including of the High Court stands ousted within the meaning of Article 212 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. According to Mr. M. Riaz Ahmed since respondent No,1 is a Private Limited Company, therefore, on such ground as well no relief can be granted against a private person/body or organization, hence, the Constitutional petition deserves dismissal. He placed reliance on NLR 1981 SCJ 478.
7. The learned Deputy Attorney-General in addition to the above noted contentions of Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed argued that even if the impugned order is treated to have been passed without hearing the petitioner and is coram-non-judice or mala fide only the Service Tribunal shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to go into the question as the matter relates to the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner and; the Constitutional petition in the matter is not maintainable nor even competent.
4. We have considered the contentions of the parties learned counsel in the light of the available documents and the relevant provisions of the law including the case-law cited on their behalf.
' The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aneesa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. Reported in 1994 SCM R 2232 while considering the question of the applicability of the rule in relation to the service matters between Master and Servant has held that the effect of the application of the Master and Servant rule is that an employee of a Corporation in absence of violation of law or any statutory rule cannot press into service Constitutional jurisdiction or Civil jurisdiction for seeking relief of reinstatement in service, his remedy for wrongful dismissal is to claim damages. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however; dilating upon the facts of the aforesaid case noticed that the appellant being the employee of the statutory corporation was reverted to the post earlier held by her and before taking such action neither any show-cause notice was issued nor opportunity of hearing was afforded to the aggrieved employee, nor governed by the statutory rules on the subject, in view of the principles of 'Audi alteram partem' held that the said Maxim will be read into as part of every statute if the right of hearing has not been expressly provided therein, and; the adverse action found to have been taken in violation of the principles of natural justice can be equated with the violation of a provision of law warranting pressing into service, Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution which the High Court failed to exercise and the fact that there are no statutory rules, thus; relationship of the Corporation with its employees being that a Master and Servant will not negate the application of the above Maxim, as well as the same being inconsonance with the Islamic Injunctions as highlighted in the case of Pakistan and others v.
Public at large (PLD 1987 SC Shariat Appellate Bench 304) consequently; the Supreme Court applying the Maxim held that the action taken by the Corporation in reverting its employee not governed by the statutory rules to be without lawful authority, and of no legal effect with the observation that the Corporation, however; would have option to take fresh action against employee after hearing him in accordance with law. In the instant case Mr. S.A.M. Quadri did not contest the plea put forth on behalf of the respondents that relationship between the parties pertaining to service matters is not governed by any statutory rule and; secondly as abovesaid by virtue of section 2A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973; the petitioner has to be treated as a Civil Servant' therefore, on such score the case of the petitioner is distinguishable to the facts of the case reported in 1994 SCM R 2232 and 1998 SCM R 850 in which the provisions of Article 212 of the Constitution read with S.4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 was not under consideration by the Hon'ble Court.
' Admittedly the petitioner is an employee of S.M.L. a private (Ltd:) Company registered under the Companies Act, 1984. It has been categorically urged in preliminary objection (ii) of the parawise comments filed by the respondents that M/s S.M.L is fully financed and owned by the Federal Government, therefore, in such view of the matter A within the preview of section 2A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 the petitioner shall be deemed to be a 'civil servant' for the purposes of the Act, and secondly; since vide impugned order the petitioner has been reverted/demoted to, the earlier position/post held by him as Geologist and such question being directly related to the terms and conditions of his service, hence is amenable exclusively to the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal and the matter being not that of fitness of the petitioner or of his promotion simpliciter to a higher post or grade within the meaning of clause (b) of section 4 of 'Service Tribunals Act, 1973 consequently; this Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain this petition in view of provisions of Article-212 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Moreover; if it be assumed for a moment that the arguments of Mr. S.A.M.. Quadri were to prevail that the question relates simpliciter to the holding of a particular post or grade by promotion and of the fitness of the petitioner to hold such post to which the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal does not extend, yet; in absence of statutory Service Rules on the subject, the relationship between the parties will be governed by the principles of master and servant, therefore, the Constitution petition would not be competent, consequently; the petitioner cannot invoke Constitutional jurisdiction, 1994 SCM R 2232 and 1998 SCM R 2280 ref:.
Moreover; reversion order of the petitioner as above held relates to the terms and conditions of his service amenable to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, because of his being a civil servant, therefore, Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked by the petitioner merely for the reason that he has been condemned unheard or that no show-cause notice was issued to him before passing the adverse order against him, 1998 SCMR 650 and 1998 SCM R 2280 ref We, do not find it proper to dilate upon the contention of Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed that Constitutional petition against a private organization is not competent for the reason because the petition otherwise fails for being without any substance.
' Thus; in view of the above-mentioned discussion and reasons this Constitutional petition being not maintainable, is dismissed.