1. ' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, C.J.--- The petitioners seeking review of the judgment, dated 23-9- 2008 passed by this Court in a petition arising out of the judgment, dated 6-12-2006 rendered by the Chief Court in a writ petition has filed this review petition. The writ petition was filed by the respondents challenging the validity of the order of their termination from service passed on 20-9- 2002 by the Management of Agha Khan Education Services, Pakistan Northern Areas.
2. ' The respondents during the pendency of this petition showing their willingness for voluntary retirement on payment of lump sum compensation for the remaining service in the form of golden hand shake scheme of the organization agreed for amicable settlement. In response thereto the management of AKES P offered them the payment of Gratuity and G.P. Fund as per their entitlement on normal retirement but the negotiation of the parties for settlement out of Court failed and consequently their learned counsel advanced the arguments for decision of this petition on merits.
3. ' The main ground on the basis of which respondents succeeded before the Chief Court was that the order of their termination from service was passed in utter disregard to the principle of natural Justice and they have been condemned unheard. The Chief Court having set aside the order impugned before it in the writ petition directed reinstatement of respondents in service with back- benefits.
4. ' Leave was granted by this Court in the petition filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the Chief Court to consider the questions:---
(a) Whether writ petition against the order passed by the management of AKES, P. a private organization was maintainable and the judgment of the Chief Court was not without jurisdiction.
(b) Whether in view of the relation of master and servant between the petitioners and respondents the only remedy available to the respondents was of civil suit for damages.
5. This Court held in the judgment under review that AKES, P. Being not an autonomous or Government funded body, was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Chief Court but in view of the nature of case, the Court converted the petition for leave to appeal into a direct petition under Article 27 of Northern Areas Governance Order, 1994 read with Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan with the observation in para.23 of the judgment as under:--- "So, we convert this petition into appeal under Article 27 of the Governance Order, 1994 read with Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and decline to interfere as the case in hand covers Part-II of Chapter I, read with Article 27 of Governance Order, 1994, and declare that termination orders of the respondents were illegal void ab initio and without lawful authority.
6. Principle of natural justice demand that a party shall not be condemned unheard before taking any serious action of termination, parties must be given opportunity of defence and to rebut the allegations levelled by the employer against the employee. The learned counsel for the petitioners failed to produce any law or authority which put any embargo upon the apex Court to interfere or entertain such-like petitions against such-like bodies."
7. Having considered the matter on merits this Court proceeded to declare the order of termination of respondents from service as illegal and also granted the consequential relief of reinstatement of respondents in service with full back-benefits.
8. ' Mr. Muhammad Shafi and Mr. Naghman Haider Zaidi learned counsel representing the petitioners in this review petition have contended that this Court after coming to the conclusion that writ petition was not maintainable in the matter was not justified to convert the petition for leave to appeal against the judgment rendered by the Chief Court in the writ petition, into a direct petition under Article 27 of Northern Areas Governance Order, 1994 read with Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan. Learned counsel argued that no question of public importance relating to the enforcement of any fundamental right was involved in the case for invoking jurisdiction of the Court under Article 27 of Northern Areas Governance Order, 1994 and instead the respondents could avail the alternate remedy of civil suit for damages before the Civil Court.
9. ' Mr. Zaidi placing reliance on PLD 2008 SC 30, 2008 SCMR 763, PLD 2006 SC 602, 1997 CLC 1936, PLD 1988 Kar. 489, PLD 1961 SC 531, PLD 1947 SC 146, PLD 1956 (W.P.) Pelence 72, 1994 SCMR 1548, SCMR 1555, 1994 SCMR 2061, 2003 SCMR 1241, 2004 SCMR 521, 1998 SCMR 2129, 2001 PLC (C.S.) 1239, 2003 SCMR 1241 and 2007 PLC (C.S.) 1046 submitted that the judgment under review suffers from jurisdictional defect which is patent error of law and this Court would not hesitate to correct such error in review jurisdiction. The learned counsel further argued that in view of the relationship of master and servant between the parties, the respondents even in case of wrongful dismissal could not invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court.
10. ' Mr. Muhammad Issa Senior Advocate learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that this Court after detail discussion and examination of record held that the termination of respondents from service was wrongful, therefore, the finding would not be questionable in review petition on collateral grounds. Learned counsel submitted that notwithstanding the fact that writ petition before the Chief Court was not maintainable, the order of conversion of the petition for leave to appeal into direct petition under 27 of Northern Areas Governance Order, 1994 was unexceptional as this Court may in a case pending before it pass an appropriate order for doing complete justice. Learned counsel for the respondents however realizing the defect in the judgment with regard to the date of payment of back-benefits, on instructions of his clients present in Court has submitted that respondents however realizing the defect in the judgment with regard to the date of payment of back-benefits, on instructions of his clients present in Court to the date of payment of back-benefits, on instructions of his clients present in Court has submitted that respondents may be allowed back-benefits from the date of judgment of the Chief Court instead of the date of termination order.
11. AKES, P. Is a welfare organization in private sector which functions in the education field throughout Pakistan including Northern Areas and is engaged in public service as a registered body under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. This welfare organization despite being not a statutory body has much importance and is recognized as an educational institution equal to the status of a public institution therefore, has to follow its rules and regulations in respect of rights of individual. With force of law and departure from these domestic rules and regulations may give rise cause of action to an aggrieved person to avail an appropriate remedy under the law. Consequently the objection that a private organization engaged in the activities connected with the basic right of people is not amenable to the original jurisdiction of this Court is not acceptable as general proposition. Notwithstanding the status of an organization or institution whether private or public, this Court in a proper case of public importance involving enforcement of a fundamental right may in exercise of its original jurisdiction under Article 27 of the Governance Order, 1994 read with Article 61(1), Gilgit Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order, 2009 pass an appropriate order in the interest of complete and substantial justice, therefore, the technical objection that writ petition filed by the respondents against the judgment of the Chief Court could not be converted into a direct petition by this Court in the original jurisdiction under Article 27 of the Governance Order, 1994 would be of no significance.
12. ' This is settled law that right of earning is part of the right of life under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan read with Article 19-A of Governance Order, 1994 and Gilgit Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order, 2009. The infringement of right of service in an illegal mariner would amount to deprive a person from right of earning which is curtailment of the basic necessity attached with the fundamental right of life. The public importance of the matter is evident from the fact that the service of a large number of employees of AKES P. a private organization were terminated by a collective order passed in general terms in departure to the law of natural justice and consequently the aggrieved employees were denied a legitimate right of service. In the circumstances narrated above, this Court rightly converted the petition for leave to appeal into a direct petition under Article 27 of Governance Order, 1994 therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petition under Article 27 of the Governance Order was not maintainable before this Court and that no question of public importance relating to the enforcement of fundamental rights was involved in the matter has no substance. This Court having found the termination order void set aside the same and granted consequential relief to the respondents and the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any material illegality or legal defect in the judgment calling for our interference in this review petition.
13. ' This may be pointed out that in the operative part of the judgment, the date of termination has been inadvertently mentioned as 6-12-2006 instead of 20-2-2002 which is corrected accordingly.
14. In the judgment of Chief Court the respondents were allowed back-benefits from the date of termination of their service but their learned counsel has submitted that same may be granted from the date of their reinstatement in service in pursuance of the judgment of Chief Court and we direct accordingly. This review petition with above modification in the judgment stands disposed of with no order as to the costs.