1. ' KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J.--- This petition has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Syed Shahzad Hussain Shah, (2) Mrs. Aziza Khudai, (3) Mr. Abdul Wahab Memon, (4) Mr. Alamgir Korai,
(5) Mr. Maqsood Maqbool Khumbati, (6) Mr. Hanif Memon and (7) Mr. Anser Ali Qureshi, who were employees of National Commission for Human Development (N.C.H.D.), which was established by the previous Government in July, 2001 under Ordinance, 29 of 2002.
2. ' The case of the petitioners is that they were employees of National Commission of Human Development (N.C.H.D.) which was established in July, 2001 as a federal statutory body. The petitioner No,1 Syed Shahzad Hussain Shah was appointed as an Assistant District Manager (V.C.D).
3. With effect from 5th July, 2005, on a three months probation period and after completion of probation period due to his excellent performance, he was confirmed on his job by the Commission on 22nd July, 2007. He further states that during his service period he had secured a score "A" competency and was allowed increment in the salary amounting to Rs,1384 per month. His case is that without providing the opportunity to defend and without giving one month prior notice or without giving one month gross salary in lieu of notice as required by the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner, his services were terminated by General Manager, Human Resources in violation of the Rules published in Human Resources and Administrative Policy Manual of National Commission of Human Development Department of Human Resources.
4. ' The petitioner No,2 was appointed as a Junior Literacy Coordinator with effect from 19th June, 2006, initially on three months' probation period she was also confirmed by the Commission on her job but was removed on 27th November, 2007, without providing an opportunity to defend herself.
5. She was also not given one month notice salary or notice prior to her termination. She was also terminated by General Manager, Human Resources, who according to the petitioner was not competent to- terminate as per Human Resources and Administrative Policy Manual.
6. ' Petitioner No,3 was appointed as a Literacy Coordinator on 19th June, 2006, on three months' probation period and was finally confirmed on his job and was terminated on 27th November, 2007 in the similar manner.
7. ' Petitioners Nos.4 and 5 were appointed as Literacy Coordinator with effect from 10th June, 2007 on three months' probation period, they were confirmed on their job and were terminated on 27th November, 2007 in the manner as the above mentioned petitioners were terminated.
8. ' Petitioner No,6 was initially appointed as Social Organizer on contract basis in the year 2004.
9. Subsequently, he was appointed as Assistant District Manager (V.C.D.) with effect from 5th July, 2005 and was terminated on 27th November, 2007. His grievances are same as that of the other petitioners.
10. ' Petitioner No,7 was appointed as Junior Literacy Coordinator with effect from 19th June, 2006, initially on three months probation and was subsequently confirmed and removed from service on 27th November, 2007, in the manner as others were removed.
11. ' The petitioners' counsel Mr. Wasique Ahmed Kehar has argued that the termination of all the petitioners is made in violation of Human Resources and Administrative Policy Manual and in violation of rules 12.02, 17, 18.01, 18.02, 18.03, 18.04, 18.05, 18.06, 18.07 of Employees Service Rules, 2006.
12. ' It is stressed that all the petitioners have been terminated by the General Manager, Human Resources Mr. Muhammad Farrukh Rashid, who was not competent under the law to issue termination letter under Rule 12.02 Employees Service Rules, 2006, only Director, Human Resources is authorized to issue termination letter.
13. ' It is argued that the concerned authorities have not given the initial warnings as provided by Rule 18.01 of Employees Service Rules, 2006, no final warning was given as provided under section 18.02. It is argued that the order of the termination of all the petitioners from service are unlawful, illegal, without jurisdiction, without authority and without due course of law and is in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of Pakistan. The petitioners state that no adequate and efficacious remedy is available to them except to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
14. ' The notice of the petition was issued to respondents as well as Deputy Attorney-General on 28-1- 2008. The respondents have filed their comments/reply.
15. ' The counsel for the respondents in written comments filed on behalf of the respondents has taken preliminary objection that respondent is not governed by any statutory rules, hence, the petitioners has no locus standi to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the Honourable High Court. It is stated that principles of master and servant are applicable in this matter.
16. ' It is further stated that the petitioners have alternate remedy available to them to file appeals before the competent authority against their order of termination under section 19 of the National Commission for Human Development Employees Service Rules, 2006. The respondents have stated that the petitioners have suppressed material facts from this Honourable Court regarding departmental inquiry proceeding initiated against each of the petitioners and finding of the Inquiry Committees. It is stated in the comments that the petitioners were terminated on account of their misconduct in official duties and unbecoming attitude towards their superiors. It is stated that all the petitioners were terminated after full-fledge inquiry.
17. ' The learned counsel has argued that National Commission of Human Rights was created under Ordinance No,29 of 2002 dated 19th July, 2002 and it has been registered under Companies Ordinance, 1984 (Act XLVII of 1984). According to Article 3(6) of the Commission, the Commission shall be an Autonomous Body of the Cabinet Division, Government of Pakistan. The learned counsel has argued that principle of master and servants are applicable in the matters of employment. The learned counsel has vehemently denied that the petitioners were not afforded opportunities of being heard. He states that the petitioners have wilfully concealed the facts that there termination orders have been issued after holding inquiries, in which they were found guilty of misconduct in official duties and charges of their in-becoming attitudes towards their superiors were proved against them.
18. ' Learned counsel has argued that the petitioners cannot invoke constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, as their appointments, terminations and inquiries held against them involve factual controversy which cannot be entertained in the constitutional jurisdiction. The learned counsel has further stated that the department was established on the basis of funds which were being received, during the relevant time, from U.N.O. And thereafter as the funds were stopped by U.N.O.
19. The department of Commissioner, which was registered under Companies Ordinance, was almost closed due to lack of funds.
20. ' The learned counsel has further argued that section 19 of the Service Rules provides alternate remedy in the shape of appeal to be preferred against the termination which remedy has not been availed by the petitioners. They have suppressed this fact from this Honourable Court and as such have not come with clean hands and are not entitled to any relief.
21. ' Regarding legality of signatures on the termination letters, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that though it is provided in Rules 12.02(2) that Director, Human Resources is authorized to issue termination letter but in fact no such post existed in the department and no one was appointed as Director, Human Resources, hence the General Manager, Human Resources had the charge of the same and he was exercising the powers.
22. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners in his reply arguments has stated that they were not aware of the provision of appeal against the termination. The appeal was to be filed within 15 days and by the time they came to know about the provision of appeal, the 15 days' time had already lapsed, as such they have filed this constitutional petition.
23. It is settled law that ignorance of law is no excuse. The petitioners have not availed the alternate remedy available to them against their termination order as such they cannot invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Principle of Masters and Servant is applicable in cases of autonomous corporations. The respondents' counsel has produced copy of order, dated 14-2-2007 in C.P. No,D-662 of 2006, in which petition was dismissed by this Court as non-maintainable on the ground that in an autonomous corporation the relationship is that of Master and Servant. The present case involves factual controversies regarding the inquiry proceeding.
24. ' We, at this stage, do not want to enter into factual controversy or merits of the case, as any observations made by us may prejudice the case of either side on other forum having jurisdiction to entertain this matter.
25. As far as writ jurisdiction is concerned, we are clear in our mind that factual controversies are involved in this case. The petitioners have not availed alternate remedy available to them under section 19 of the Human Resources and Administrative Policy Manual. In these circumstances, this petition is not maintainable, we had already dismissed the above petition in limine by a short order dated 22-10-2008, and these are the reasons for the said short order.