1. ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C J.---This petition has been directed against the judgment dated 31-10-2006. For the sake of convenience, relevant para therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "13. There is no dispute between the parties about the factual aspect of the appeals and Miscellaneous Petitions. There is also no cavil to the proposition that originally the petitioners/appellants, being Government employees, were civil servants, but the question before us is, whether after their transfer to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company and respondent- PTCL, they continued to enjoy the status of "Civil Servants". The authority cited by Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan viz. 1999 SCM R 1526 in case of Divisional Engineer Phones, Phones Division, Sukkar and another v. Muhammad Shahid and others supported his contention to the extent that a transferee servant of the Corporation and Company continued to be civil servant, but that is "subject to the absence of any provision to the contrary." The contrary provisions in the case of petitioners/appellants is subsection (3) of section 36 of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996. The relevant para of the said authority i.e, 1994 SCMR 1526 Page 1536 [c] is reproduced as under:-- "From the preceding discussion and review of the above case-law it follows that the relationship of employees of a body or organization which is conferred corporate status either under a statutory provisions or instrument or by virtue of its incorporation under a law which provides for registration of such bodies, with such body or organization is governed with the principle of master and servant in the absence of statutory rules governing the employment of such employees. In such cases the only remedy available to an employee against wrongful dismissal from service is a suit for damages. If the service rules applicable to the employees of a Corporation are, however, statutory in nature, violation of such rule can be brought under challenge before the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution and in appropriate cases High Court in addition to declaring the action illegal, may also allow relief by way of reinstatement in service.
2. ' In cases of Corporation created by the Government through statutory instruments if existing employees are transferred to the Corporation, in the absence of any provision to the contrary (underlined by us), the transferred employees continue to remain in the service of Corporation, on the same terms and conditions under which they were working before their transfer to the Corporation. Therefore, if an employee of the Corporation before his transfer to the Corporation was a civil servant, he continues to be a civil servant. In all other cases, where an employee is appointed in the service of the Corporation after the Corporation is established, his service is governed by the service rules of the Corporation. If such rules are not statutory, the principle of master and servant governed the relationship between the employee and Corporation. The question which arises for consideration in the above cases, therefore, is, what is the status of the respondents in the above appeals as respondents in the above appeals as employees of PTCL. The contention of the respondent before the Federal Service Tribunal was that they enjoyed the status of civil servant while the appellant claimed that they were governed in matter of their employment with the appellant on the principle of master and servant."
3. ' Subsection (3) of section 36 of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996 is also reproduced as under:- "(3) At any time within one year from the effective date of order vesting property of the Corporation in the Company, the Federal Government may, with the prior written agreement of a Transferred Employees, require him to be transferred to or revert him back and the employed by the authority, National Telecommunication Corporation, Trust or the Federal Government on the same terms and conditions to which he was entitled immediately before such transfer."
4. ' There is nothing on record and it has not been asserted by the petitioners/appellants that they had ever been re-transferred or reverted to their original position of civil servants, as envisaged under subsection (5) of section 36 above; hence, the authority cited by Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan is distinguishable and not applicable to the case of the petitioners/appellants. On the other hand, Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan had not controverted the contention of Mr. Shakirullah Chandio to the effect that he had submitted the statement before the Court of IVth Senior Civil Judge South, Karachi conceding to the jurisdiction of the said Court in the matters against the PTCL.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that prior to transfer of petitioner to the PTCL he was in the employment of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation. When we questioned from the learned counsel that as to whether they have been ever transferred or reverted in terms of subsection (3) of section 36 of Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act, 1996 to the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation from PTCL, where he is presently serving and whether PTCL has got statutory rules, he candidly conceded that neither he was ever transferred or reverted to the corporation nor PTCL has got statutory rules. Therefore, in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that in view of the judgment of Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602, the learned Tribunal had rightly declined to grant relief to the petitioner. Petition is dismissed and leave declined.