SAEED AHMED ZAIDI, MEMBER. - By the present M.P. The appellant has prayed that the order of abatement dated 30.6.2006 be recalled. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is an employee of Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) which has been established under the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 4982. It has been argued that under Section 27 of the said Ordinance, CAA Service Regulations were framed on 15/1/2000 by the Authority's Board, It has been urged that the Honourable Supreme Court in its judgment reported as PLD 2007 SC 681 - Muhammad Idrees v. Agricultural Development Authority Bank of Pakistan has held that cases in which services were governed by statutory rules, were not hit by the Court's judgment in Mubeen- us-Salam V. Federation of Pakistan (clause (c) of para 14 para 14 of the judgment). Consequently, such employees could approach this Tribunal, It was further contended that the regulations having been framed by the C.A.A. Board in exercise of the powers delegated by the Legislature, were statutory regulations and therefore C.A.A, employees could invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
2. The respondents have resisted the appeal on the ground that the powers to make regulations were given to the authority by the C.A.A. Ordinance and the regulations were accordingly framed by its Board. These regulations were, therefore, non-statutory and were distinguishable from statutory rules which could be framed only by the Government in exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 26 of the said Ordinance.
3. It has been reiterated by the learned Counsel for the respondents that not only the service regulations framed by the C.A.A, were non-statutory, the employees of the C.A.A, were not holding any posts in connection with the affairs of the federation and therefore could not be treated as civil servants. Besides, prior to the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act 1973, in '1997, the C.A.A, employees used to approach either the High Court or a Civil Court for redressal of their gnevances, By the Honourable Supreme Court's judgment in Mubeen-us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan status-quo ante has been restored and the aggrieved employees could no longer maintain their appeals before this Tribunal and must approach the same forums which they had been approaching upto 1997. It was stressed that it were only the rules framed by the Government which could -be regarded as statutory rules and the regulations or rules framed by statutory bodies like C.A.A, could not be treated as statutory.
4. We have considered the arguments of both the sides and have perused the C.A.A. Ordinance, C.A.A. Service Regulations and the 1994 rules framed Under Section 26 of the Ordinance by the Federal Government. Under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Ordinance, the C.A.A, is a body corporate having perpetual succession and could exercise the powers conferred by the Ordinance.
Under Section 7 of the said Ordinance, the management of the Authority vests in, its Board whereas Section 12 empowers the Authority to appoint officers and servants as it may consider necessary and on such terms and conditions as it may prescribe by regulations, It was in exercise of the powers under Section 12 that the Authority framed "Civil Aviation Authority Service Regulations" as per decision of the Board taken in the meeting held on 15.1.2000. It is not disputed, that the service regulations have been framed by C.A.A, and not by the Federal Government, In Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Nasir Jamal Malik - 2001 SGMR 934, the Honourable Supreme examined the rules' framed by the ^Central Government under Section 29 of the PIAC Act, 1956 (which contain provisions somewhat similar to Sections 26 and 27 of the C.A.A. Ordinance). Rule 22(e) of the said rules empowers the Board of the Corporation to appoint, remove or suspend any Manager, Secretary or servants and direct and control and fix their salary and grades etc. It was held by the Honourable Supreme Court that "In our view, above rules have nothing to do with the service matters as they relate to the working and powers of the Board of Directors of respondent No. 1 Corporation." Keeping in view this judgment, we find that the statutory rules framed by the Federal Government under Section 26 are distinguishable from the Service Regulations framed by C.A.A, It is also apparent that rules framed by the Federal Government in 1994 under Section 26 of the Ordinance do not apply to or cover matters relating to terms and conditions of service of C.A.A, employees. The C.A.A, is free to frame any regulations for the purpose of its internal management including matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of its employees. The regulations framed by C.A.A., therefore, do not have any statutory backing.
6. We therefore do not find any merit in the present Miscellaneous Petitions and dismiss the same.
7. The appeal stands abated. No order ,as to costs.