' MUHAMMAD QASIM KIIAN, J.--- Briefly the facts of the case are that after his appointment as Cashier in Habib Bank Limited on 11.12.1976, after various promotions the petitioner reached to the rank of Officer Grade-II w.e.f.
01.01.1999. According to the petitioner he was offered voluntary separation scheme but he refused, whereupon, he was transferred out of region. Subsequently, however, after an inquiry the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 1 1 the of June, 2002. Against his dismissal order, the representation of the petitioner also failed vide another impugned order dated July 22nd, 2002. The petitioner then filed a service appeal, but with the decision reported in PLD 2006 SC 602, the appeal was abated, hence, this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel representing the respondent Habib Bank Limited has raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that IIabib Bank Limited is a private Organization having its non-statutory rules, therefore, in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, this writ petition is not maintainable. Reliance has been placed on the case "Abdul Wahab and others v. IIBL and others" (2013 SCMR 1383) and ''Noor Badshah v. United Bank Limited through President and 3 others" (2015 PLC (CS) 468).
3. The learned counsel for the writ petition while rebutting the above preliminary objection argued that as it is an old matter and petitioner was proceeded under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, therefore, per force of case "Pakistan Defense Officers Housing Authority and others v. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed" (2013 SCMR 1707), the instant-writ petition is competent.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at full length and perused the available record with their assistance.
5. There is no dispute to the proposition that Constitutional Petition does not lie in respect of the bodies which do not have statutory rules of service. There is no denial to the fact that Habib Bank Limited is a private organization and is being run under non-statutory rules. The status of Habib Bank Limited earlier came under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case "Abdul Wahab and others v. HBL and others" (2013 SCMR 1383) and the apex Court after formulating a question "(i) What is the status of the Bank; the status and relationship of its employees (the petitioners) vis-a-vis the Bank;", answered the said question in para.7 of the judgment in the following terms:- "It is an admitted position that the Bank has been privatized and the majority shareholding thereof, has been acquired and is vested in Agha Khan Foundation, there also is no discord that the Board of Management of IIBL is predominantly represented by the said foundation. However, in order to bring the Bank within the. Purview and the connotations (s) of a 'person' and 'authority' appearing in Articles 199, 199(5) and 199(1)(c) of the Constitution and also for the purposes of urging that ,appropriate order in the nature of a writ can be issued independently by this Court under Articl: 184(3) (Constitution), to the Bank, the leaned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously relied upon the 'function test'; and in this respect it is submitted that the State/Federation has a considerable, shareholding in the Bank and representation in the managing affairs thereto therefore it shall qualify having the status of a person/authority within the meaning of the law, besides, the Bank is being regulated by an under the authority of the SBP thus on this account as well it (Bank) has the status mentioned. Above, therefore this Court should exercise its jurisdiction in terms of the Article supra. In this context, it may be held that for the purposes of resorting to the 'function test', two important factors are the most relevant i.e. The extent of financial interest of the State/Federation in an institution and the dominance in the controlling affairs thereof. But when queried, it is not shown if the State/Federation has the majority of shareholding, or majority representation in the Board of Management of the Bank. As regards the authority and the role of the SBP (in the above context), SBP is only a regulatory body for all the banks operating in Pakistan in terms of Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 and suffice it to say that such .Regularity role and control of SBP shall not clothe the Bank, with the status of a `person' or the 'authority' performing the functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation.
Rather it shall remain to be a private entity."
' After the above detailed discussion the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in an unambiguous manner held that "we have no hesitation to hold that the Bank is a private institution for all intents and purposes." Furthermore, this Court also in the case "Noor Badshah v. United Bank Limited through President and 3 others" (2015 PLC (CS) 468) after deep analysis held that Bank being a private entity and not performing functions in connection with Province, Federation or any statutory authority, Constitutional petition is not maintainable.
6. So far as the case law referred by learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. "Al Qera Atiq v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Aviation and 19 others" (2015 PLC (CS) 363), is concerned, the same is based entirely on distinguishing facts, as the said judgment has been rendered in a suit filed under Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), whereas, to maintain a writ petition, the language of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is to be kept in mind. As regards the case "Pakistan Defense Officers Housing Authority and others v. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed" (2013 SCMR 1707), in the cited judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held the writ petition to be maintainable by holding that "Keeping in view the statutes which established the statutory bodies in question and their functions, they were bodies performing functions, some of which were functions of the Federation/State and through the exercise of public power, said bodies created public employments.---Said statutory bodies were therefore "persons" within the meaning of Article 199 (1)(a)(ii) read with Art. 199(5) of the Constitution---Actions or orders passed by statutory bodies in question which were violation of the statutes creating them or of the rules/regulations framed under such statutes, could be interfered with by the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution." There is no equivocation to the above dictum laid by the apex Court, but here in this case, the Ilabib Bank Limited (respondent-Bank) is a banking limited company. It is not the creation of any statute and the services of its employees are governed by their own manual. Even if a private authority adopts any government law for their internal affairs, by such mere adoption of laws, it cannot be said that the employees are governed by a statute. The petitioner being employee under the said respondent Bank was although proceeded under Removal from Service Ordinance (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 by the departmental authority, yet as discussed above, by simple adoption of any law it cannot be said that petitioner was proceeded under the statute and on that basis the petitioner cannot claim the relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Thus, with all respect to the above referred judgment, the dictate laid down therein, is of no use to the petitioner in this case.
7. For what has been discussed above, since the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner being an employee under HBL, a private organization, were not governed by any statutory rules, therefore, per force of judgment "Pakistan International Airline Corporation and others v. Tanweer- ur-Rehman and others (PLD 2010 SC 676), the petitioner could not file a Constitution Petition before this Court, to seek enforcement of terms and conditions of his service against Habib Bank Limited (HBL). Consequently, the instant writ petition is dismissed being not maintainable.