' SHAH KHAWAR, J.---Brief facts of the case are that petitioners No, I to 4 were appointed as Executive Officers on May, 2010, petitioner No, 5 was appointed as Computer Officer and petitioner No, 6 was appointed as. Record Sorter, respectively on contract basis in National Insurance Company Limited owned by the Government of Pakistan. The contract period of petitioners was for eleven months and petitioners joined their service at National Insurance Company Limited (NICL)
Zonal Office Multan and performed their professional duties. After expiry of eleven months, their contract period was extended time to time up to 31.07.2011 and before expiry of contract period, on 08.07.2011, respondent No, 3 terminated the services of petitioners No, 1 to 5. Being aggrieved, petitioners except petitioner No, 4 (Muhammad Sufian) filed writ petitions No, 9247/2011 10303/2011, 10304/2011 and 10707 of 2011 in this Court. Vide order dated 11.08.2011, this Court passed the following order:--- "In the meanwhile, the petitioner is allowed to continue his services at his present place of posting subject to notice for a date to be fixed by the office in the month of October, 2011."'
' The above-said writ petitions came for hearing on 17.10.2011 on which date this Court converted the writ petition as representations and transmitted the same to respondent No, 1 with a direction to act strictly in accordance with law and pass speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In compliance of the order of this Court, respondent No, 1 fixed a date for hearing of petitioners and declined their representations to reinstate them into service while giving detailed reasons. The impugned order dated 27.12.2011 passed by respondent No, 1 has been challenged by way of filing instant writ petition.
2. Report and parawise comments were requisitioned from respondents which were so filed.
3. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel representing respondents have been heard. ' The record is also perused with their able assistance.
4. Petitioners were appointed against their respective assignments on contract basis for eleven months which was extended up to 31.07.2011. Letters of termination were issued to the petitioners dated 08.07.2011 mentioning therein that petitioner's services are no more required by the company and by invoking Clause 2 of the contract/appointment letters, their services were terminated with immediate effect. It was mentioned that one month's salary along with other dues as per terms and conditions of the letter will be paid to petitioners in lieu of notice of termination.
5. Respondent-company is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Ordinance, 1984 and has its own Human Resource Manual approved by its Board of Directors which is non-statutory in nature. Learned counsel for respondents contended that the petitioners are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court as their services are governed through non-statutory manual. Reliance has been placed by respondents in cases reported in PLD 2010 SC 676; 2013 SCM R 642 and PLD 2011 SC 132.
6. In the cited judgments, it is held that principle of Master and Servant would apply on the employees who are governed by non-statutory rules. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on case-law reported in 2013 SCM R 1707 [Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority and others versus Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed and others].
7. In the said quoted judgment. Relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has dilated upon following questions:---
(i) 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?
(ii) Whether the respondents-employees being person in corporation service within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and having been deprived of their right, to appeal by a judgment of this Court in Mubeen-us-Salam's case (PLD 2006 SC 602), could invoke Article 199 of the Constitution against the order of the. Departmental authority in view of the law laid down by this Court in Civil Aviation Authority through Director- General v. Javed Ahmed and another (2009 SCM R 956) or their remedy is a claim of damages as held in Pakistan International Airline Corporation v. Tanweer-ur-Rehman (PLD 2010 SC 676), Executive Council, Allama lqbal Open University, Islamabad through Chairman and another v. M.
Tufail Hashmi (2010 SCM R 1484), Hyderabad Electric Supply Company v. Mushtaq Ali Brohi (2010 PSC 1392) and Civil. Aviation Authority through Director General v. Javed Ahmad (2009 SCM R 956)?
8. The question No, 1 was answered as under:- "27. 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 their 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."
9. The question No, 2 was answered as under:- "It was not disputed before this Court by appellant's learned counsel that the respondents- employees were "persons in corporation service" within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Ordinance 2000 and except in the case of N.E.D. University, they were proceeded against under the said law. This was a statutory intervention and the employees had to be dealt with under the said law. Their disciplinary matters were being regulated by something higher than statutory rules i,e, the law i,e, Ordinance, 2000. Their right of appeal (under section 10) had been held to be ultra vires of the Constitution by this Court as they did not fall within the ambit of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, [(in Mubeen-us-Salam's case (PLD 2006 SC 602) and Muhammad Idrees's case (PLD 2007 SC 681)].
They could in these circumstances invoke Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to seek enforcement of their right guaranteed under Article 4 of the Constitution which inter alia mandates that every citizen shall be dealt with in accordance with law. The judgment of this Court in Civil Aviation Authority (2009 SCM R 956) supra is more in consonance with the law laid down by this Court."
10. The minute perusal of above-quoted judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reflects that the case of present petitioners is distinguishable. The petitioners were appointed in accordance with the Human Resource Manual of NICL approved by its Board of Directors which is non-statutory in nature. By invoking Clause 2 of the contract/employment letters, services of the petitioners were terminated.
11. In the quoted judgment, two important questions have been settled. One, in the light of "function test" in which it is held that statutory bodies performing some of functions which are functions of 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 of the Constitution. In reply to the second question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the respondents-employees were "persons in corporation service" within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and they were proceeded under the said law. This was, a statutory intervention and the employees had to be dealt with under the said law hence, the disciplinary matters were being regulated by something higher than statutory rules.
The jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution was available to them.
12. In the present case, the petitioners were not regulated under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 but the Human Resource Manual approved by its Board of Directors which is non-statutory in nature so, the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan is not applicable in the instant case. Admittedly the terms and conditions of services of the employees of N1CL are governed by Human Resource Manual, approved by its Board of Directors and same is non-statutory in nature. As per dictum laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in 2013 SCM R 1707, the principle of Master and Servant would apply on the employees of NICL. So, the termination letters issued by NICL against the petitioners are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court and same cannot be interfered with.
13. For what has been discussed above, the instant petition has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed.