' SHEZADA MAZHAR, J. --- Through his single order, we intend to dispose of Intra-Court Appeal Nos.
67 and 80 of 2014, as both have arisen out of the same order dated 23.01.2014 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against his transfer order dated 18.04.2013 and show-cause notice dated 04.12.2013 issued by the Punjab Seed Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) were dismissed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber.
2. The appellant challenged his transfer order dated 18.04.2013 as well as the show cause notice dated 04.12.2013 on the ground that the same are without jurisdiction and tainted with mala fide.
Both the writ petitions were resisted by the learned AAG as well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation on the ground that the respondent/Corporation not having statutory rules, therefore, the writ petitions are not maintainable. The learned Judge in Chamber, dismissed both the writ petitions holding that the respondent corporation does not have statutory rules, hence, the present Intra-Court Appeals.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent/corporation is a statutory body as the same has been established under Punjab Seed Corporation Act, 1976 and has its statutory rules issued under Section 24 of the Act of 1976 by the Chief Minister of the Punjab. The said rules were duly published in the official Gazette and therefore, are of statutory in nature. Learned counsel while referring to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in "Pakistan Defence Officer's Housing Authority v. Jawaid Ahmad" (2013 SCMR 1707) argued that the writ petition was maintainable.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Corporation as well as learned AAG resisted the present Intra Court Appeals on the ground that the Corporation has no statutory rules and therefore, the writ petitions as well as present Intra Court Appeals are not maintainable. In support of their contention, learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 20.12.1999, passed in Intra Court Appeal No. 103/1996 as well as Punjab Seed Corporation and 2 others v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others (1996 SCMR 1947), Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited' and others v. Said Rehman and others (PLJ 2013 SC 665) and Lt. Commander (Retired) Naeem Javed v. University of the Punjab, etc. (PLJ 2014 Lahore 222), to submit that the relationship between the appellant and respondent is of master and servant as the respondent Corporation does not have statutory rules, therefore, the writ petition was rightly dismissed.
5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments referred by them.
6. The whole case of the appellant's counsel was based upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in Pakistan Defence Officer's Housing Authority v. Jawaid Ahmad" (2013 SCMR 1707) wherein the Hon'ble Court of Pakistan held in para-50 as under:- "The principles of law which can be-deduced from the foregoing survey of the precedent case- law can be summarized as under:---
(i) Violation of Service Rules or Regulations framed by the Statutory bodies under the powers derived from Statute in absence of any adequate or efficacious remedy can be enforced through writ jurisdiction.
(ii) Where conditions of service of employees of a statutory body are not regulated by Rules/Regulations framed under the Statute but only Rules or Instructions issued for its internal use, any violation thereof cannot normally be enforced through writ jurisdiction and they would be governed by the principle of 'Master and Servant'.
(iii) In all the public employments created by the Statutory bodies and governed by the Statutory Rules/Regulations and unless those appointments are purely contractual, the principles of natural justice cannot be dispensed with in disciplinary proceedings.
(iv) Where the action of a statutory authority in a service matter is in disregard of the procedural requirements and is violate of the principles of natural justice, it can be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
(v) That the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 has an overriding affect and after its promulgation (27th of May, 2000), all the disciplinary proceedings which had been initiated under the said Ordinance and any order passed or action taken in disregard to the said law would be amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution."
' Perusal of the said judgment revels that the Hon'ble Supreme Court framed two questions and answered the same.
' Question No. 1 was "Whether the appellants are persons discharging functions in connection with affairs of Federation or a Province within the meaning of clause (5) of Article 199 of the Constitution and amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court?"
' Dealing with the said question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan after considering the law, structure and functions of the statutory bodies/corporation authorities namely Pakistan Steel Mills, Port Qasim Authority, SME Bank Defence Housing Authority held as under:- Keeping in view the Statutes which established and the functions of the appellants' authorities, and having considered in the light of function test", we hold and declare that these are statutory bodies, performing some of the functions which are functions of the Federation/State and through the exercise of public power, these bodies create public employments. These bodies are therefore, "persons" within the meanings of Article 199(1)(a)(ii) read with Article 199(5) of the Constitution. If there actions or orders passed are violative of the Statute creating those bodies or of Rules/Regulations framed under the Statute, the same could be interfered with by the High Court Under Article 199 of the Constitution."
7. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to consider the law, structure and functions of the respondent/Corporation. The Corporation is established under: the Punjab Seed Corporation Act, 1976 and the same is a commercial body and performing functions of State. In this regard, Section 4 of the Act is very relevant which states as under:- "4. Establishment, powers and constitution of the Board.---(1) The administration and management of the Corporation and its affairs shall vest in a Board to be constituted by the Government through a notification issued in the official gazette. The Board may exercise powers and do all acts and things that may be exercised or done by the Corporation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) The Board in discharging its functions shall act on commercial considerations and be guided by such directions as the Government may give to it from time to time."
' Similarly the bulk of funds for carrying out the purpose of the Corporation is provided by the Provincial Government. In this regard reference is made to clause 16 of the Act, which states as under:---
16. Source of funds.---To enable the Corporation to carry out its business effectively and to meet charges in connection with its functions under this Act, the Government shall provide the Corporation with adequate funds.
8. Therefore, keeping in view the established powers and conditions of the board, it can be held that Punjab Seed Corporation is performing functions which are ' functions of Province and therefore, fall within the definition of "person".
9. Now it is required to see whether the rules of the Corporation are statutory in nature or not. The perusal of the service rules as placed on record by the learned counsel for the appellant reveals that the same are issued under Section 24 of the Punjab Seed Corporation Act, 1976. Section 24 granted power to the Government to issue rules for the purpose of the Act. The rules placed on record are not only issued by the Chief Minister of the province but were duly published in the Punjab official Gazette. In view of the above two facts, the rules are statutory in nature.
10. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents/Corporation as well as learned Single Judge in Chamber i.e. I.C.A. No. 103/1996 relates to the service regulations of respondent Corporation which were issued under Section 25 of the Act. The said Section grant power to the Board of the Corporation to make regulation for carrying out the purpose of the Act. It was due to this fact learned Division Bench of this Court, held that the regulations were framed by the Board and therefore were not statutory in nature. The writ petition was therefore, held to be not maintainable.
11. After the incorporation of 2007 Rules the position has been changed as the rules have been made under Section 24 of the Act which empowers the Provincial Government to frame rules for the purpose of Act, therefore, said judgment is not applicable to the case in hand.
12. The other judgment on which learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon Punjab Seed Corporation and 2 others v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others (1996 SCMR 1947) wherein the termination order was challenged before the Labour Court who found the same to be on valid grounds. The said termination order was challenged before Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal who set aside the said termination order and granted relief prayed for in the petition. The order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was challenged in Constitutional petition before this Court and was dismissed against which leave to appeal was prayed for before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan which was refused by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said judgment is also not applicable to the case in hand as there was no issue of Rules and Regulations framed under the Punjab Seed Corporation or regarding maintainability of the writ petition. The next judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent i.e. Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited and others v. Said Rehman and others (PLJ 2013 SC 665) deals with the ZTBL Staff Regulations, 2005 which were framed under statutory provisions and therefore, it was held that the relationship of employees of ZTBL is of Master and Servant. The referred case-law is also not relevant to the case in hand.
Similarly, the Lt. Commander (Retired) Naeem Javed v. University of the Punjab, etc. (PLJ 2014 Lahore 222) deals with the employees of the University of The Punjab and it was held that the employees of the University of the Punjab were governed by the principle of Master and Servant as there are no statutory rules of the respondent/University.
13. In the case in hand, as explained above, the rules farmed under Section 24 of the Punjab Seed Corporation Act, 1976 by the Punjab Government and were duly published in the official gazette, the same are statutory in nature, therefore, the appellant had the right to agitate his grievance regarding his service matters before this Court through writ petition.
14. Now we shall take up the merits of the case. In writ petition No. 4981/2013, the appellant has challenged the show cause notice dated 18.04.2013 issued under Section 13(4) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 on the ground that the same has been issued with mala fide intention and due to grudge against the appellant.
15. No adverse order has been passed against the appellant. The show-cause notice has been issued against the appellant to explain his position and that too after holding inquiry wherein appellant participated. The appellant has approached this Court without filing reply to the show- cause notice. It has been held by the superior courts of the country time and again that mere show-cause notice cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction. Reference can be made to Messrs Dancom Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive Officer v. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority through Chairman and another (2012 CLD 394), Syed Khalid Mehmood Bukhari v. G.M.
(HRO) PTCL and others (2012 PLC (CS) 1366) and Khalid Mahmood Ch. And others v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Livestock and Dairy Development (2002 SCMR 805).
16. In writ petition No. 15305/2013 appellant had challenged the order dated 04.12.2013 whereby the services of the appellant were transferred from Khanewa! To Gujranwala on the ground that the same was not issued by the competent authority.
17. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the same has been issued with the approval of the competent authority. Even otherwise, appellant has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place.
18. In view of the above, though the writ petition is maintainable as the Corporation where the appellant served has statutory rules but at the same time, the writ petition does not lie against the transfer order or show cause notice. Hence, the present Intra Court Appeals having no force stand dismissed. ICA dismissed.