KHALID MAHMOOD, J. --- Tanvir-ud-Din seeks the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court praying for:-- "Declaration to the effect that impugned order dated 25.8.2009 is illegal, unlawful without jurisdiction, passed in colourful exercise of power. Mala fidely in sheer violation of Service Rules and Natural Justice, result of discrimination, thus is of no legal effect qua the rights of the petitioner.
Direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back salary and benefits and let him to continue and perform his duties till attaining the age of superannuation and to grant any other relief to which the petitioner may be found entitled under the law with cost."
2. The facts, as mentioned in the petition, are that petitioner being B.Sc. Engineer, joined the respondent establishment as Junior Engineer on 14.1.1989 and at the time of passing of impugned release/retirement order dated 25.8.2009 he performing his duties as Executive Engineer, Training Department NRTC, Haripur. Petitioner asserted that as per agreed terms and conditions petitioner has a vested, guaranteed and secured right to serve the respondent establishment till attaining the age of superannuation i.e. Till 1.1.2008 whereas respondent establishment has illegally, unlawfully, in sheer violation of its Service Rules and agreed terms and conditions of service, retired the petitioner from service vide impugned order dated 25.8.2009.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that premature retirement of petitioner is based on mala fide and against the service rules and petitioner has an inalienable right to serve the establishment till attaining the age of superannuation. It was argued that terms and conditions of service of petitioner are to be governed strictly in a manner provided in the Service Rules framed and promulgated by the respondent establishment.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent establishment opposed the contentions of petitioner and supported the impugned compulsory, premature retirement order.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Petitioner is an employee of National Radio Telecommunication Company, which is a private limited Company registered under the Companies Act, governed by the Board of Directors, which was established in 1966 and incorporated in Companies Act is managed by the Direct under the terms of memorandum and Article of Associate The Board of Directors is empowered and has an absolute power of hire and fire in all categories. The meeting of the Board of Directors, which was held on 30th December, 2008 and 21st December, 2009 has authorized Managing Director, NRTC to retire/release the employees on case to case basis. The relevant portion from the minutes of the meeting is reproduced below:-- "30th December, 2008. 8.4. MD NRTC informed the House that Standing. Finance Committee principally agreed and recommended for BoDs' approval. After weighing all prose and cons, it was approved by the Board that MD NRTC may retire/release the employee on case to case basis and there should be no brain drain, and report in this respect be submitted in the subsequent BoDs' meeting.
21st December, 2009. 5.3 Manpower Profile: MD NRTC informed the House that on the advice of Chairman/Vice Chairman to lay off the noncontributing employees (deadwoods) on case to case basis, one employee Sheikh Nasrullah ex-Chief Engineer with all legal and terminal benefits admissible under the NRTC Service Rules."
7. In the light of the said authorization, the petitioner alongwith other employees were retired and were granted their respective allowances, proper description, leave encashment and other dues etc. The petitioner was granted Rs. 20,56,163/- in lieu of the services rendered to the respondent/Company. Petitioner was allowed to retain official accommodation for 6 months upto 28.2.2010 and Rs. 1,00,000/- were withheld from the final payment subject to the vacation of the house, which would be released after the deduction of utility bills, etc.
8. The petitioner's main grievance was that he had not attained the age of retirement, therefore, the respondents were not competent to retire/release him from the service.
9. Respondent/Company is not established under statute, hence, has no statutory rules, whereas it is registered under the Companies Act. As respondent/Company is not creation of a statute, hence, the maintainability of present petition has been questioned by the respondent. In this respect wisdom can be drawn from the case titled "Frontier Sugar Mills Vs. Salah-ud-Din" reported as PLD 1975 SC 244. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced:-- "In these circumstances, the Company obviously remains under its own management irrespective of the Government's right to nominate one of the Directors. The Company is not an organization or corporation created by a special statute, nor is it substantially financed and controlled by the Government. The Government control is limited to those regulations, which apply to all similar concerns engaged in the sugar industry. Such Governmental control of commercial or industrial activities cannot be regarded as investing joint-stock companies with the. Character of a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of a Province or a Federation. The High Court was, therefore, clearly right in holding that the Company was not amenable to the issuance of writ under clause (2)(a)(i) of Article 201 of the Interim Constitution."
10. In the said judgment, it was held that writ cannot be entertained in case of companies, which was governed by the Companies Act. In the present case, the petitioner is not employee of statutory body, rather he is employee of the Company. In this regard; the case of petitioner does not come within the ambit of Government servant or employee of statutory body, hence, the writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked. For reference, the case of "Pakistan International Airline Vs. Tanveer-ur-Rehman" reported as PLD 2010 SC 676, whereas the status of employees of PIA was declared that of master and servant. The relevant portion of the said judgment is hereby reproduced:-- "Therefore, question for consideration would be as to whether in absence of any breach of statutory provision, the employees of appellant-Corporation can maintain an action for reinstatement etc. This Court when faced with the same question in the case of Principal Cadet College, Kohat and another v. Muhammad Shoaib Qureshi (PLD 1984 SC 170), held that "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". Likewise in Raziuddin v. Chairman, PIAC (PLD 1992 SC 531), this Court has held that "the legal position obtaining in Pakistan as to the status of employees of the Corporations seems to be that the 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 of 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 there is any breach of such provisions, an employee of such a Corporation may maintain an action for reinstatement."
11. In the light of above legal aspect and the dicta of the apex Court, the present writ petition being not maintainable. However, if any, the grievance of petitioner is yet to be resolved, petition can seek his remedy before the competent forum, if so advised. .