' SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.--- Due to the commonality of the issue involved as to the maintainability of a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the following petitions have been heard together. Writ Petition No,10147 of 2006, Writ Petition No,9843 of 2006, Writ Petition No,9249 of 2006, Writ Petition No,11806 of 2006, Writ Petition No,10169 of 2006 Writ Petition No,10729 of 2006, Writ Petition No,5780 of 2006, Writ Petition No,11479 of 2006, Writ Petition No,10094 of 2006, Writ Petition No,10190 of 2006, Writ Petition No,10176 of 2006, Writ Petition No,11547 of 2006; Writ Petition No,11293 of 2006, Writ Petition No,10136 of 2006, Writ Petition No,9844 of 2006, Writ Petition No,9931 of 2006, Writ Petition No,10845 of 2006, Writ Petition No,11934 of 2006, Writ Petition No,9946 of 2006, Writ Petition No,6815 of 2006, Writ Petition' No,10342 of 2006 and Writ Petition No,8834 of 2006.
2. These are petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by the employees/ex-employees of State Life Insurance Corporation. After the insertion of provisions of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 they had been seeking remedy before the Federal Service Tribunal, now they think their remedy about any of their grievance qua conditions of service lies before this Court after judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salami and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others PLD 2006 SC 602.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that as a consequence of paragraphs 108 and 109 of the judgment in Mubeen-usSalam case, their remedy lies before this Court in view of the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973, which according to them were statutory in nature having been framed under the enabling provisions of Article 49 of Life Insurance (Nationalization)
Order, 1972 (President's Order 10 of 1972). Several precedents including National Bank of Pakistan v.
Manzoorul Hassan 1989 SCMR 832, National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Court No,5, Faisalabad and 2 others 1993 PLC 595, MRs, Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. And another 1994 SCMR 2232, Arshad Jamal v. N.-W.F.P. Forest Development Corporation and others 2004 SCMR 468 and The Managing Director, U.P. Warehousing Corporation and others v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee AIR 1980 SC 840 have been cited by them.
4. To the contrary the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation vehemently opposed the maintainability of petitions before this Court, as according to them the petitioners' service in the Corporation is not governed by any statutory rules or regulations. They have argued for the dismissal of these petitions. Reference has been made to The Principal, Cadet College, Kohat and another v. Muhammad Shoab Qureshi PLD 1984 SC 170, Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others PLD 1984 SC 194, Chairman, WAPDA and 2 others v. Syed Jamil Ahmed 1993 SCMR 346 and Pakistan Red Crescent Society and another v. Syed Nazir Gillani PLD 2005 SC 806 and some unreported orders/judgments passed by the High Court in writ petitions and intra- court appeals.
5. The regulations namely The State Life Employee (Service) Regulations, 1973 have been regarded and treated and treated by this Court as non-statutory in nature. In Writ Petition No,22360 of 1999 while dismissing the petition on 8-2-2001, Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J., as his lordship then was, took the view that there was no violation of any statutory provision or rules/regulations by the Board.
The said judgment was maintained by a learned Division Bench of this Court in I.C.A. No,146 of 2001 by dismissing the appeal on 17-7-2006. Another order of this Court is by my learned brother Maulvi Anwarul Hag, J., who while dismissing Writ Petition No,5000 of 2006, on consideration of such a matter came to the conclusion that writ petition On the alleged violation of State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973 was not maintainable as the same were not "statutory" in nature. It was observed that "now the proceedings were initiated and concluded and the petitioner,, was dismissed under the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973. These are the Regulations, which governed the relationship between the petitioner and the said employer. The consensus of judicial authority expressed in several judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan is that where the power to frame Regulations is given to the Corporation established under a Statute then such Regulations are not to be treated as a statutory rules, the breach whereof can be treated as a statutory Rules, the breach whereof can be enforced by filing a suit or writ petition. Now the respondent No,1 is a creature of the Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972 (P.O. No, X of 1972).
Article 49 of the said Order empowers the respondent No,1 to make Regulations with the previous approval of the Central Government. These include the terms and conditions of service of the employees or agents. Thus, the Government having not vested itself with the said power, the Regulations, so framed by the said Corporation would not be statutory Rules". Even I have followed the said view and Writ Petition No,10415 of 2006 was dismissed on 20-11-2006. Deviation from such a view which has already been taken by the learned Benches of this Court is not called for in view of The Province of East Pakistan and others v. Sirajul Haq Patwari and others PLD 1966 SC 854, wherein it was observed "that being charged with the high function of interpreting and pronouncing upon the validity of laws, and being thus, itself a source of law, the High Court should avoid giving a decision directly inconsistent with that given by itself earlier, and thus, speaking with two voices on a point of law, where no question arose of resolving inconsistency between two or more earlier decisions" and Mir Haji Khan and 11 others v. Mir Aijaz Ali and 2 others PLD 1981 SC 302. The rule of propriety and consistency thus, demands that the same view is followed unless altered/modified by the higher forum.
6. Even any attempt to assail the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal (as has been done in some of the cases) cannot be countenanced in view of provisions of Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as remedy against any such judgment/order of dip Service Tribunal lies before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and not before this Court in view of the Superintendent of Police, Headquarter, Lahore and 2 others v. Muhammad Latif PLD 1988 SC 387.
7. There is another category of cases where the action was taken under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The said Ordinance is a special law providing special remedies and forum. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has already in Anwar Parvez v. Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Abbottabad and 2 others 2005 SCMR 1603 and Federation of Pakistan through D.G. Military Lands and Cantonment Rawalpindi and others v. Syed Ibrahim Shah NLR 2006 Service 51, taken note of the special features of the said special legislation.
Under section 10 thereof appeal lies before the Federal Service Tribunal against any final order passed against the aggrieved person. Prima facie the implications of judgment in Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam case are not invokeable to such a case. In view of special provisions of such law having overriding effect as held in the above precedents and Full Bench of this Court in Muzaffar Hussain v. The Superintendent of Police, District Sialkot 2002 PLC (C.S.) 442 jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 cannot be invoked.
' As a result of the above, petitions before this Court are not maintainable, the petitioners should seek remedy from the proper forum. Their petitions are dismissed accordingly.