' SYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, J.--- The case of petitioner is that soon after his initial appointment in PERAC as Medical Officer, on 28-10-1990 his services were taken up by Petroman and on 1-2-2000 he was permanently absorbed in Petroman. Since then, he was providing his services to Petroman.
All of a sudden, without any show-cause notice, on 8-10-2003 the petitioner was informed through dismissal letter that his services had been terminated w,e,f, 8-11-2003 and that the -intervening period would be treated as the period of notice. This letter further stipulates that position of his dues and liabilities would be communicated in due course of time. However, after filing of appeal before the General Manager Incharge of Petroman on 17-10-2003, and receiving notice of the petition, dated 15-11-2003, respondent Petroman changed their line of action and had issued another letter dated 17-11-2003 titled as "Letter of Repatriation" stating that as the petitioner's services were no more required by Petroman therefore, he was being terminated from their employment and was being repatriated to his parent organization PERAC.
2. According to the petitioner, without any hesitation he approached PERAC and submitted his joining report on 20-11-2003, but as no order was passed by the PERAC Authorities on the joining report, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to issue a legal notice on 13-12-2003 and it is, thereafter, for the first time, by reply 7-1-2004, contention of PERAC came forward. According to them Petroman was a division of PERAC upto 9-9-2000 and thereafter, it had no concern with PERAC as it now became a department of the Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication. Thus, all Petroman employees ceased to have any nexus or lien with PERAC after 9-9-2000 and that no officer of Petroman had any authority to repatriate any Petroman employee to PERAC.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No,4 PERAC contended that by memorandum of 9-9-2000 PERAC, was dissolved and the competent authority had approved the transfer of Petroman, a division of the State Petroleum and. Petrochemical Corporation (PERAC) of the Ministry of Industries and Production to the Information Technology and Telecommunication Division with all its assets, liabilities and staff with immediate effect. Therefore, any action of Petroman authorities of repatriating the services of the petitioner to the respondent Corporation, on the face of it was mala fide, and had no legal effect.
4. None is present for respondents Nos.7 and 8 to rebut the averments made by the respondent No,4. Even otherwise, memorandum issued on 9-9-2000, has not been challenged by authority in the field and, by subsequent letter, dated 20-9-2000, all assets, liabilities and staff of Petroman were transferred to Information Technology and Telecommunication Division. Therefore, any order of termination by Petroman, or repatriating the services of the petitioner to PERAC will be deemed to be without jurisdiction which is further confirmed by office memorandum, dated 16-1-2004 regarding the transfer of Petroman to the Information Technology and Telecommunication Division. Even if it is taken that his letter of 16-1-2004 the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources had decided not to accommodate the ex-employees of Petroman in PERAC as it was about to close down. First of all, petitioner was not an ex-employee of Petroman by virtue of letter, dated 1-2-2000 and secondly by letters dated 20-9-2000 and 9-9-2000, the Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication Division, the respondent No,3 had taken full responsibility of all the assets, liabilities and staff of Petroman. So in the above referred admission at a subsequent stage they cannot back out from their commitment. Therefore, the petitioner would be deemed to be employee of Petroman on 9-9-2000 and from 20-9-2000 would be deemed to be an employee of the respondent No,3, as the so-called termination letter, even if considered, was issued on 8-10- 2003.
5. Though no satisfactory arguments were placed by the learned counsel for the respondent No,4 to the memorandum issued on 9-9-2000, nevertheless a legal plea as to the maintainability of this petition being time-barred, is raised, and in support of Muhammad Aslam v. WAPDA and others 2007 SCM R 513 has been relied upon. It is contended that as the previous petition filed by petitioner under No, D-49 of 2004 for the same relief was time-barred by one year as by virtue of section 4 of Service TribunaL's Act, 1973, any civil servant aggrieved by an order, whether original or appellate, made by the departmental authority, may prefer an appeal within 30 days of communication of such order. According to petitioner, he had first approached to Tribunal on 10-9-2004. With due respect to the observations made by. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan the facts in that case are completely different to those in present case. Appeal filed by the petitioner before Services Tribunal was not disposed off on merits but in view of judgment in Muhammad Mubeen- ul-Salam's case PLD 2006 SC 602 it was abated. At the same time the fact which has been overlooked by the learned counsel for the respondent No,4 is that the termination letter of 8-10- 2003 from which they are computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal before Service Tribunal was in fact withdrawn by the departmental authorities and by letter dated 17-11-2003 he was repatriated to PERAC and till now appellant is hanging in the air between the two with no specific order of his termination from services by eitdepartmentsher of the two departments. Even if office memorandum dated 16-1-2004 is taken up as the letter of non-absorbent observation of petitioner with the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, then also except making a vague and general observation to the employee of Petroman, the fact still remains that no letter of termination was ever issued by them.
6. Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui, learned D.A.-G. For respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3, contended that the contract between the petitioner and PERAC was executed on 1-11-1990 and in terms of that contract it is case of Master and Servant and thus, the only remedy available to the petitioner would be to file a suit for damage.
7. It may be pointed out here that in the case of Muhammad Dawood and others (C.P. No,1591 of 2006 and other connected petitions), while examining various orders passed by the Federal Service Tribunal concerning abatement of the appeals pursuant to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Mubin-usSalams' case referred to hereinabove the Honourable Court was pleased to hold as under:-- "From the above somewhat detailed discussion, we have arrived at the following conclusions:--
(i) Irrespective of an employee of a State controlled corporation not being a civil servant the corporation themselves continue to remain amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.
(ii) The rule of master and servant is not applicable to cases where there is violation of statutory provisions or of any other law.
(iii) The expression "violation of law" would not be confined merely to violation of any specific provisions of a statute but the expression "law", as observed by Hamoodur Rehman, J. (as his Lordship then was) in Government of West Pakistan v. Begum Agha Abdul Karim Sorish Kashmiri PLD 1969 SC 14 @ 31 and ought to be considered in its generic sense as connoting all that is treated as law in this country including even the judicial principles laid down from time to time by the superior Courts. It means according to the accepted norms of legal process and postulates a strict performance of all the functions and duties laid down by law. It may, for instance, includes the principles of natural justice, the public duty to act fairly and honestly and absence of mala fides in fact and law. In all such cases the Court would be competent to grant relief of reinstatement."
8. We are bound by the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the above noted case and, following the case, will hold that the petitioner, even if an employee of PERAC, is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court- under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and the petition, as such is maintainable in law
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources to whom Petroman has been transferred, as before 16-1-2004 the petitioner was admittedly in the service of Petroman.
Further that the respondents Nos.7 and 8 are liable to pay the salary and allowances of the petitioner from October, 2003 till he was taken over by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and thereafter, the respondent No,3 are under obligation to pay all benefits with reinstatement in service of the petitioner.
10. In view of the foregoing reasons, this petition is hereby allowed.