' AKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, J.-- Following relief has been claimed in the instant Constitutional petition: "(1) The Honourable High Court may be pleased to declare the orders of punishment of dismissal from service dated 17-5-2004 as illegal, void ab initio and to direct the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner to his post of Field Stores Officer PBS-17 with full back-benefits.
(2) As an alternative the honourable High Court may be pleased to set aside the orders of abatement of service Appeal No,1326 of 2004 and direct the learned Federal Service Tribunal to restore the service appeal and to adjudicate the same as per merits of the case.
(3) Any suitable relief which the honourable High Court deems fit along with cost of this petition".
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f, 6-2-2001 vide letter dated 17-5-2004. The petitioner after exhausting remedy Of departmental appeal preferred an appeal before Service Tribunal being No,136 of 2004 but the said appeal was dismissed by the Service Tribunal by finding it having abated in the light of judgment delivered by Honourable Supreme Court in Mobeen-usSalam's case whereafter petitioner has preferred instant constitutional petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that the order of dismissal was passed without conducting any enquiry and show-cause notice, as such; the same was illegal and without lawful authority. He further contended that the petitioner was employee of QESCO, a Company having no statutory rules, as such; his case was not amenable to the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal and the Constitutional petition was maintainable. He referred to the judgments reported in 2007 PLC (C.S.)
244 and 2008 PLC 671.
4. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel objected upon the maintainability of the instant getition in view of judgment passed by Honourable Supreme Court and reported in PLD 2007 SC
681. He further contended that services of petitioner were terminated after due enquiry and service of show-cause notice, as such; the petition was liable to be dismissed.
4-A We have carefully considered the contentions put forth by the parties' learned counsel. In view of the objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel about the maintainability of instant petition we intend to dispose of said object first. It is not disputed that the petitioner was employee of WAPDA set up under WAPDA Act, 1958, however; WAPDA by exercising its powers under section 8(5) formed companies for different regions including QESCO and services of the petitioner were placed at the disposal of QESCO. It is also an admitted feature of the case that the Board of Directors of QESCO adopted all existing rules of WAPDA in its meeting dated 28th June, 2005, thus; terms and conditions of petitioner's services have been determined under the WAPDA Act, 1958 and rules made thereunder, as such; petitioner cannot invoke constitutional jurisdiction of this Court in matters relating to the terms and conditions of his service in view of clear bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Honourable apex Court in the judgment reported in PLD 2007 SC 681 held that the cases in which services of the employees were governed by statutory rule are not hit by Mubeen-us-Salam's case.
' In another judgment delivered by Peshawar High Court in Writ Petition No,1557 of 2006 the honourable Judges while dealing with the question as to whether WAPDA employees have still remedy before the Federal Service Tribunal or otherwise, observed as under: "Firstly, the status of the employees of WAPDA is entirely distinct than the status of employees of autonomous bodies or corporations who were deemed to be in the service of Pakistan under section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The employees of WAPDA were not the beneficiaries of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, rather they were declared to in the service of Pakistan under section 17 (1-B) of WAPDA Act as amended in 1975. A proper mechanism for regulating the conduct and discipline of WAPDA employees has been prescribed in the status itself coupled with the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978. Article 240 of the Constitution makes it obligatory for the appropriate legislature to determine the terms and conditions of the persons in the service of Pakistan and through the amendment of WAPDA Act in 1975 they said terms and conditions have been incorporated in the statute by the Federal Legislature whereas further authority was delegated to the Administrative Department to frame the rules and therefore the Rules of 1978 were statutory rules. Hence the service under WAPDA was regulated by statutory provisions and the statutory rules. So they did not fall within the legal fiction of section 2-A of the Service Tribunal Act whereby all the employees of Corporations and autonomous bodies under the Federal Government were declared to be in the service of Pakistan without caring for the constitutional requirement of Article 240 of the Constitution. Since the terms and conditions of service of employees of WAPDA were determined by statutory provisions coupled with the statutory rules, therefore, such employees have been availing the facility of Federal Service Tribunal for the redressal of their personal grievances since 1975. During the period of almost thirty years thousands of cases were decided by the Service Tribunal and confirmed by the honourable Supreme Court whereby their status and the remedial process for the service' grievances has been reconfirmed. Section 2-A was added to the Service Tribunals Act in 1997 for which there was neither any statutory provision in the mother statute of Federal autonomous bodies nor there were statutory rules for which employees, therefore, the decision in the case of such employees could not be applied to the employees of WAPDA who have been specifically declared to be in the service of Pakistan through the basic statute and their terms and conditions have been not regulated. Thus, the letter dated 21-7-2006 of the Registrar; Federal Service Tribunal was not the correct appreciation of the law as well as the true interpretation of the said judgment of the apex Court.
5. The right recourse for the petitioner was to have approached the Federal Service Tribunal for restoration/revival of his appeal in the light of judgment of Honourable apex Court reported in PLD 2007 SC 681.
' For the foregoing reasons, in our considered view the petitioner has remedy before the Service Tribunal where he has already filed appeal, as such; the petition is dismissed being not maintainable.