' MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.--- The petitioners claim that initially they were recruited as Passenger Services Assistants on 10-10-2001 and 2-10-2001 respectively by Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (hereinafter referred as PIAC). The petitioners were performing their duties according to the entire satisfaction of their superiors and in recognition of theirperformance they were deputed by PIAC time and again for Haj operations. The PIAC issued identity card forms to them. The petitioners were initially engaged through a manpower contractor on daily wages but PIAC directly engaged them for doing work in their different departments. According to their duty schedule the petitioners are covered under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002 and Standing Orders Ordinance 1968 and by rendering services for more than 180 days they attained the status of permanent workmen/employees of respondents/Corporation. The PIAC for recruiting the persons of their choice and without any notice, are bent upon to relieve the petitioners from their duties, wants to engage raw hand persons for the said job. The persons proposed to be appointed in place of petitioners are raw hand and inexperienced persons. The act of PIAC for not paying the petitioners their dues permissible under the rules and regulations of the corporation is contrary to the principle of natural justice and is also contrary to the dictates of superior courts. The job assigned to the petitioners is of permanent nature and as such they become permanent employees of the PIAC after lapse of 180 days. The PIAC verbally ordered the petitioners that their services are no more required to them. The verbal action of respondents/Corporation is against law and facts and is illegal.
2. Notices were issued to the respondents and the respondents/ Corporation filed report and parawise comments. They raised number of legal as well as factual objections. The maintainability of the present petition has been challenged. The PIAC claims that petitioners were not its employee and were recruited by Messrs A.N Enterprises their Manpower Contractor. The contract of Messrs A.N Enterprises has expired, therefore, the said contractor relieved the petitioners from their duties.
The PIAC challenged that Messrs A.N Enterprises has not been impleaded as party to the petition hence this petition could not proceed. They further challenged the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Chief ExecutiVe Order No,6 of 2001 read with section 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that appointment letter issued to the petitioners by the contractor was on the recommendation and selection of PIAC which is read as under:--- "Your employee Mr. Malik Mazhar-ul-Haq son of Malik Muhammad Ishaque has been found suitable for the assignment of Pax Service Assistant in Airport Service Department Lahore on daily wages basis as per laid down terms and conditions. You are therefore, requested to complete necessary formalities and police verification and direct them to report to the Station Manager Lahore Airport for assignment of duties."
' The contractor was acting as agent of respondent and as such the respondents are the indirect employees of the petitioners. The recommendations show that in fact the petitioners were recruited by the respondents for performing their duties. It is an admitted fact that so-called contractor was not doing the business of Air Line and as such he has invited applications from the public at large for doing the job of respondents.
4. He further referred letter dated 25th December 2000 from Manager Policies of respondents, which provides the criteria for recruitment of PIAC employees. He further submits that salaries for the work done by the petitioners were paid by PIAC, the PIAC has the powers to terminate their services in case of any misconduct. Lastly he adds that after expiry of 180 days the petitioners become the permanent employees of PIAC. He relies on Ikram Bari and 524 others v. National Bank of Pakistan through President and others 2005 SCMR 100, Muhammad Asim and others v.
Telecommunication and others 1997 PLC (C.S.) 1131 and Masood Ahmed and 24 others v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and 2 others 2001 PLC (C.S.) 41.
5. Learned counsel for respondents submits that petitioners are not the employees of PIAC and were recruited by their Manpower Contractor and as such there is no privity of contract between the petitioners and PIAC. As the Manpower contract of their Contractor/Employer has expired and the contractor may have relieved them from their services. The petitioners if have any grievance that is against their employer the Manpower contractor and not against PIAC. He further submits that even if it is proved that petitioners are the employees of PIAC even then, the relief for reinstatement cannot be granted to them, as relationship of Master and Servant, exists between the PIAC and its employees.
6. From the pleadings of parties and perusal of appointment letters show that petitioners were employed by the Contractor of PIAC. No doubt the recommendations given to the contractor as per petitioners appointment letter shows that PIAC found the petitioners suitable person, for performing their duties at Lahore Airport. The argument of learne counsel for the petitioners is that the honourable Supreme Court ( Pakistan held in case of Ikram Bari and others v. National Bank Pakistan 2005 SCMR 100 that indirect employees are also the employe of principal of the contract.
In this case the petitioners had been worki with the bank for the past many years on daily wages in varif categories and their services were terminated on the ground that they not employees of bank.
The honourable Supreme Court held employees were rendering services to the bank in spite of the fact their salaries were debited to the borrowers account they become permanent employees of respondent/bank. In this case the petitif were appointed by the Bank but their salaries were payable by the b customers. The said judgment has distinguishable facts as in the sail the employees were recruited by National Bank of Pakistan direct National Bank of Pakistan was recovering their salaries from customers who have pledged their securities for securing their f'
There was an agreement between the bank and the customer at payment of charges for safe custody of the securities provide 'l customer for securing the finance. The bank was paying the sa them but was receiving the same from its customers.
7. In the present case the petitioners were not recruited by the respondents/corporation, the petitioners were no doubt rendering services for the corporation but that was under the agreement between Manpower contractors of the respondents/corporation. The PIAC was paying agreed amount to its contractor and contractor was paying the salaries out of that amount. The services rendered by the petitioners were no doubt for the benefit of respondents/corporation but they were in fact its employees. Although the hiring of employees through contractor is a levice to frustrate the law of the land and amounts to fraud to the statute as is held in 2005 SCMR 100 but in this case it was very clear from the very first day of their employment to the petitioners that they are being hired by their employer who is a contractor of PIAC and as such there was no ambiguity about the employment of the petitioners.
8. The argument of learned counsel for the respondent is that PIAC no doubt is a corporation, the majority of whose share holding is owned V Central Government even then the statutory rules framed by the Corporation are not under the approval of Federal Government and as such relationship of its employees is of master and servant. He relied on Principal Cadet College Kohat and another v. Muhammad Shoab Qureshi PLD 1984 SC 170 and the honourable Supreme Court while Sealing this objection held as under:- "Where the conditions of service of an employee of a statutory body are governed by statutory rules, any action prejudicial taken against him in derogation or in violation of the said rules can be set aside by a writ petition, however, where his terms and conditions are not governed by statutory rules but only by regulations, instructions or directions, which the institution or body, in which he is employed, has issued for its internal use, any violation thereof will not, normally, be enforced through a writ petition."
' He further relies on Raziuddin v. Chairman PIAC PLD 1992 SC The honourable Supreme Court held in the said judgment as "the legal position obtaining in Pakistan as to the status of employees of the Corporation seems to be that relationship between a Corporation and its employees is that of Master and Servant and that in case of wrongful dismissal of an employee of the Corporation, the remedy, is to claim damages and not the remedy for reinstatement, however, this rule is subject to a qualification, namely, if the relationship between a Corporation and its employees is regulated by statutory provisions and if here is any breach of such provisions, an employee of such a ",orporation may maintain an action for reinstatement."
10. The honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Habib Bank Ltd. v. Syed Zia-ul-Hasan Kazmi 1998 SCMR 60 and Pakistan Red Crescent Society v. Nazir Gillani PLD 2005 SC 806 has also held that an employee of a Corporation in the absence of violation of law or any statutory rule could not press into service the Constitutional jurisdiction or civil jurisdiction for seeking relief of reinstatement in service, his remedy against wrongful dismissal or termination is to claim damages.
11. The regulations in the PIAC case have been framed by its Board of Directors in pursuance of section 30 of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act 1956, but it is not established that these regulations have been framed with the previous sanction of Central Government or that they were gazetted and laid before the National Assembly in terms of section 31 of the Act 1956 and as such the PIAC regulations cannot be treated as statutory rules of the nature which entitles the employee of respondents to claim the relief of reinstatement on the ground of breach of statutory provision, hence, the employees of PIAC in absence of violation of law or statutory rules could not press into service the constitutional jurisdiction for their reinstatement in service. In these circumstances remedy only available to the petitioners is to claim damages. The petitioners were not employed by the respondents, they were the employees of contractor of respondents who are not party to petition and as such they have no claim against the respondents and even if it is assumed that they were employees of respondents even then the relationship of Master and servant does exist between the parties, the petitioners are not entitled to be reinstated. The petition fails and dismissed.