' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.--- This revision petition is filed against the order of the learned trial Court, dated 22-4-2004 dismissing the application by the petitioner bank filed under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of plaint in the suit for damages filed by the respondent. This suit is filed by the respondent who is an ex-employee of the petitioner bank seeking damages in the amount of Rs,43,895,121 allegedly for his forcible severance from service under the pretext of "Golden Hand Shake Scheme" vide order by the petitioner bank dated 19-11-1997. The application for rejection of plaint in the said suit was filed by the petitioner bank principally on the ground that the respondent is a civil servant whilst the petitioner bank is a statutory body having statutory rules of service therefore, under the provisions of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 the respondent's remedy for his service grievances is available solely before the learned Federal Service Tribunal ("FST").
Consequently, it is claimed that the learned Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's suit, wherein the cause of action is the alleged violation of the terms and conditions of his service.
2. Pursuant to the direction of this Court given vide order, dated 28-2-2002 in Civil Revision No,58-L of 1999 between the present parties, the learned trial Court considered and decided the aforesaid jurisdictional objection on its merits by the impugned order, dated 22-4-2004. That the order has held that the learned Civil Court is competent to adjudicate the respondent's suit for damages.
3. Before this Court learned counsel for the petitioner bank has submitted that the respondent filed an appeal before the learned FST on the same cause of action as agitated in his suit which was dismissed by the learned FST vide order, dated 3-12-1998. The respondent's petition for leave against the said order was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court vide judgment, dated 29- 11-1999. Consequently, it is argued now that the respondent's suit is barred as it purports to reopen a past and closed transaction. The petitioner has not raised this plea before. However, as it involves a legal question, the same is considered presently.
4. The respondent's suit for damages filed on 1-9-1998 was already pending at the time of the said proceedings took place before the learned FST and the Honourable Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court in its aforementioned judgment in the respondent's appeal from the decision of the learned FST made the following observations about the respondent's present suit:-- "We need not dwell any further on the question of alleged coercion, maltreatment and duress as the petitioner had also filed a suit for damages on these very pleas and the suit is pending before the Civil Court. Suffice it to say that no justification has been made out for interference in the impugned judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. Even otherwise no question of law of public importance is made out."
5. The respondent was not satisfied with the foregoing outcome and accordingly filed a review petition before the Honourable Supreme Court. That too was dismissed on 28-2-2002 with the following observations:--- "He, however, submitted that he has already filed a suit about which observation has also been made in the judgment under review for the recovery of damages and apprehends that due to the findings recorded in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and judgment under review the decision in the said suit may not be prejudiced.
' The apprehension is misplaced and unfounded as in the judgment under review nothing has been said about the merits of the suit. It may be observed here that the said civil suit shall be decided on its own merits on the basis of material brought on record independently uninfluenced by any finding or observation made in the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal or the judgment under review of this Court.
' Subject these observations, this petition is found to have no merits and the same is hereby dismissed."
6. It is plain that both the aforenoted judgment and order in review petition by the Honourable Supreme Court acknowledge and recognize the respondent's pending suit for damages and specifically visualize that the same is decided on its own merits uninfluenced by any findings or observations made in the proceedings emenating from the service appeal filed by the respondent.
It may also be observed that a past and closed transaction occurs as a consequence of a legal bar to further proceedings A like limitation of res judicata and is not itself a self-standing ground of non-maintainability of a suit.
7. The only legal bar to the maintainability of the petitioner's suit that was pleaded for the petitioner before the learned Courts below and is stated in the contents of this revision petition emanates from the provisions of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 whereby the respondent is deemed to be a civil servant having an exclusive statutory remedy before the learned FST.
Consequently, the suit filed by the respondent is claimed to be barred. The considerable learning and effort devoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the said plea has, however, been rendered futile by the recent judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Mubeen- us-Salam and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2006 SC 611. By this judgment section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 has been held to be partially ultra vires of Articles 240 and 260 of the Constitution inter alia, because the employees of autonomous bodies and corporations cannot by a deeming clause be treated as civil servants as defined in section 2(1)(b) B of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 nor can such employees, be treated as being engaged in the affairs of the Federation. Consequently, such employees including those employed by public sector banks, have no remedy available before the FST. Accordingly, the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties about which aspects of the whole of the respondent's case fall within the jurisdiction of learned FST has become an academic exercise. Under the foregoing ruling in the Mubeen-us- Salam case, the remedy of the respondent before the learned FST, as attributed by the petitioner, has been abolished by the apex Court. Consequently, the mainstay of the petitioner's objection to the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Court based upon the provision of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 has disappeared. Neither the legal bar of jurisdiction nor the consequential plea of past and closed transaction is available to the petitioner. The only forum available for the respondent to agitate his claim for compensation, regardless of its merits, as before the competent Civil Court. In this respect the impugned C judgment dated 22-4-2004 by the learned Civil Judge has, .Therefore, arrived at the correct conclusion. In the result this civil revision is dismissed with no order as to costs.