MIAN, SAQIB NISAR, J.--- The suit for the declaration, etc. Filed by the respondent has been decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 3-4-1988; the appeal of the petitioners has also failed on 24-11-1990.
2. Brief facts, relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are, that the respondent was working as Assistant Vice-President in the Habib Bank Limited (petitioner) when on 19-7-1980, he was served with a show-cause notice for the alleged misappropriation of the Bank funds; he replied to the show-cause notice; his reply was not considered satisfactory and therefore, a regular inquiry was ordered against him, in which he was appropriately charge sheeted and after conducting the inquiry, the dismissal of the petitioner was recommended. The Competent authority after giving him a notice and providing personal hearing passed the order of his dismissal from the service on 24-6-1982; the petitioner filed an appeal against the said order under his service rules, which was also declined, where-after, the present suit was instituted in which, the respondent sought the relief for setting aside the order of his dismissal, and prayed for his reinstatement with full back benefits.
This suit was contested by the petitioners and out of the pleadings of the parties, as many as six issues were framed and the important being are as under:--
(2) Whether the plaintiff is governed by rule of Master and Servant? If so, its effect? OPD
(3) Whether the civil Court lacks jurisdiction? OPD
(4) Whether the impugned dismissal order of the plaintiff is illegal, ultra vires, null and void and the plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement with full benefits? OPP ' Learned trial Court after giving its decision on issues Nos.2 and 3, against the petitioners and in favour of the respondent and on issue No,5, in favour of the respondent has decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 3-4-1988; the appeal of the petitioner has also failed on 24-11-1990 .
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the relations inter se the parties are governed by the rule of Master and servant and there are no rules of service as approved by the Federal Government and therefore, the respondent was not entitled to the reinstatement, at the best, if his services were terminated illegally, he can claim the damages and that too only to the extent of one month salary as was envisaged on the basis of the non-statutory services rules; it is further submitted that the civil Court had no jurisdiction and the suit, for the declaration etc. Was not maintainable.
4. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the suit in this case was not maintainable, as there were no statutory rules, rather the Board of Directors pursuant to the articles of association had framed certain rules, which were not in any case statutory in nature, reliance on the proposition that where there are no statutory rules, the relationship inter se the employer and the employee shall be governed by the principle of master and servant, has been placed upon Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd and 2 others v. Muhammad Umar Malik PLD 1993 Lah. 281, Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad v. United Bank Limited and 3 others PLD 1987 Pesh. 144, and on the submission that the suit itself for the above relief was incompetent, support has been drawn from Marghub Siddiqui v.
Hamid Ahmad Khan and 2 others 1974 SCMR 519.
4-A. Replying to the above, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgments reported as Nazir Ahmad and 3 others v. Member (Admn.) Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others 1992 PLC (C.S.) 450, Mushtaq Ahmad Ex-General Manager, Ittehad Chemicals Ltd. v.
The Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Production, Islamabad PLD 1994 Lah.417, Muhammad Akhtar Shirani and others v. Punjab Text Book Board and others 2004 SCMR 1077, Rustam Ali Khan v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. Lahore and others 1990 SCMR 1544, Pakistan and others v. Public at Large and others PLD 1987 SC 304, Muhammad Ashraf v. Director-General, Multan Development Authority Multan and another 2000 PLC (C.S.) 796, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) through Chairman and others v. Nasir Jamal Malik and others 2001 SCMR 934, Muhammad Ikram v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad through Chairman and 3 others 2008 CLC 766, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and others v. Khalil Ahmad and others 2008 SCMR 116 and an unreported judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court passed in C.A.No,1111 of 2001 on 8-12-2004 to argue that where the government has controlling share in an organization, the rule of master and servant shall be inapplicable and the reinstatement of the employee can be made when it is established that the order was without jurisdiction.
5. Heard. No comments or challenge has been thrown by the petitioner's counsel upon the merits of the case; the only submission that the suit was incompetent because the reinstatement order could not be passed as relationship inter se the parties is that of master and servant, suffice it to say that from the plethora of judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent, where the organization is controlled and run by the government, the employee's services are governed by the non-statutory rules, the order of his removal, etc., if made against the rules or is illegal for any other reason, can be annulled by the Civil Court, while exercising its plenary jurisdiction. The impugned judgments and decrees are in line with the law referred to by the respondent's counsel, therefore, I do not find any merits in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.