' RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, J. --- This judgment is directed to dispose of instant FAO along with following two FAOs, as similar questions of facts and law are involved in all the three appeals:---
(i) FAO No, 187 of 2010, re: Mansur Ahsan v.SECP, etc.
(ii) FAO No, 33 of 2013, re: Rana Mustafa Yousaf Khan v. SECP.
2. Brief facts of the case are that FAO No, 140 of 2010 was filed by Sohail Najeeb, who was Joint Director IS&T Department, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad, who was appointed vide letter dated 27.6.2007 as Joint Director (Information System & Technology-IS&T Department), Head Office, Islamabad. His services were to be governed under the terms and conditions of employment as outlined in HR Handbook of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan. His services were terminated w,e,f, 10.6.2010 vide letter of the same date. The appellant has challenged the said order through the afore-mentioned appeal.
3. FAO No, 187/2010 was filed by Mansur Ahsan, who was Executive Director Human Resource Department in Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad. Vide letter dated 25.10.2010, his services were terminated and the said order of termination was challenged through the said appeal.
4. FAO No, 33 of 2013 was filed by Rana Mustafa Yousaf Khan, who had been appointed vide letter dated 09.10.2012 as Deputy Director (Media & Corporate Communications) in Talent Management Finance & Communication Division. His services were terminated vide letter dated 17.5.2013. Feeling aggrieved of the same, he filed the said appeal.
5. In all the three cases, the termination was simpliciter and no reason for termination was given.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants in all the three cases submitted that the appellants had spotless career and their services were terminated without any reason. Termination simpliciter has been declared as unlawful by the. Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in judgment re: Muhammad Ashraf Tiwana and others v. Pakistan and others, reported as 2013 SCMR 1159. It was further submitted that neither any show-cause notice was issued to the appellants, nor any inquiry was conducted and therefore, the termination orders were violative of the principle of Audi Alteram Partem.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appeal was not maintainable, as the appellants had been appointed under the terms and conditions of employment as outlined in HR Handbook of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan.
There was no provision of appeal in HR Handbook. Since the appeal itself was not maintainable, therefore, the argument, as to whether reason for termination was given or not, would not be relevant.
8. Controverting this argument, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that under Section 34 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997, the appeal was the only remedy available to the appellants.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
10. There can be no denial of the facts that rules governing employment of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan are not statutory rules. Section 8 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 provided for appointment of employees of the Commission. The said provision was to the following effect:-- "8. Appointment of employees of the Commission.--- (1) The Commission may, from time to time, employ persons to be employees of the Commission who shall be paid such remuneration and allowances and shall hold their employment on such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Commission with the approval of the Board.
(2) The employees of the Commission shall holdoffice during the pleasure of the Commission and shall be liable to disciplinary action in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Commission with the approval of the Board."
' Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan HR Hand Book was promulgated in exercise of Sections 4, 5 & 8 of SECP Act, 1997 and the provisions of this Handbook were made applicable to officers of the Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan. The appointments of the appellants were governed by this HR Hand Book. The provision of termination was provided in Chapter 2 as well as in the appointment letter and against the same there was no provision of appeal in the HR Handbook to the Court. Under Section 5 of Chapter 2 of HR Handbook an employee aggrieved by decision adversely effecting his terms and conditions of service had the right of appeal to the appellate authority within one month and there was no other remedy available in HR Handbook.
11.As far as Section 34 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 is concerned, the same is to the following effect:- "34. Appeal to the Court,- (1) An appeal shall lie to the Court referred to in Part ll of the Ordinance in respect of an order of the Commission comprising two or more Commissioners or the Appellate Bench.
(2) The appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within sixty days of the date of the decision and shall be accompanied by a fee of one hundred rupees."
' The word 'Ordinance' has been defined in Section 2(o) of the Act, which means the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The plain reading of Section 34 ibid shows that any order passed in respect of anything contained in Part II of the Companies Ordinance, shall be appealable before the Court.
Part II of the Companies Ordinance is regarding jurisdiction of the Courts. Section 7 of the Companies Ordinance provides that the Court would be the High Court. Jurisdiction conferred by Section 7 ibid is confined to the matters which are expressly covered by the Companies Ordinance itself, such as winding up proceedings, etc. And not the matters, which are not expressly covered by the Companies Ordinance. If, the Companies Ordinance provides for a remedy to be agitated before the Court u/s. 34 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, only that cause can be agitated before the High Court and no other grievance or cause can be agitated before the High Court. The employment of the appellants is not covered by the Companies Ordinance and therefore, in respect of any grievance regarding employment of officers of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, appeal would not lie before this Court. The appellants could avail the remedy provided in the HR Handbook in the shape of representation and thereafter could invoke the jurisdiction of ordinary Civil Court, but no appeal before the High Court u/s. 34 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997, is maintainable. Same view was taken in case re: Shazia Baig and others v. Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan and others, reported as 2011 PLC (C.S.) 900. In this respect learned counsel for the appellants referred to the case re: Chairman SECP v. Muhammad Ashraf Gondal & others, bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 305 & 306 of 2009, wherein it was held that an order of Commission comprising of two or more Commissioners was appealable before a Company Judge in terms of Section 34 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997. In fact the said case was regarding absorption of Civil Servants in the Commission. Regarding the same, writ petition was filed before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, which was allowed, but the ICA was dismissed. Facts of that case were totally different from the case of appellants.
12. As far as the contention that no reason was given in the termination order and the same has been declared as unlawful by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, is correct. However, the same point can be raised before the proper forum and not in High Court in appeal u/s. 34 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997. Since, the appeal itself is not maintainable, therefore, on the basis of this contention, the appellants cannot be reinstated.
13. In the above-said circumstances, I hold that all the three appeals are not maintainable and are therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.