CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J. --- Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.09.2012 passed by GM (HR), SNGPL whereby he was dismissed from the company's service; order dated 21.02.2014 passed by appellate authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner; and the order dated 79 10.2015 dismissing the representation of the petitioner
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was inducted into service of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited. On 23.12.2009 a charge-sheet was served to the petitioner, thereafter inquiry was conducted and the inquiry officer submitted his report to the Senior Manager (HR), SNGPL. A show- cause notice dated 09.02.2011 was duly issued to the petitioner and on 24.09.2012, the petitioner was dismissed from the service due to "involvement in suspicious activities i,e, installation/re- connection of meters against the policy and receipt of illegal gratification". The petitioner filed departmental appeal which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.02.2014. The petitioner also filed petition before the National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad on 11.06.2013 but withdrew the same on 03.07.2014. On 13.05.2014, the petitioner also filed a Writ Petition No, 4864/2014 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.01.2015. The petitioner filed another Writ Petition No, 14620/2015 which was disposed of vide order dated 06.10.2015 and transmitted the same as a representation of the petitioner to-the Managing Director, SNGPL for decision on merits. In compliance of direction passed by this Court in the above writ petition, the Managing Director, SNGPL decided the representation of the petitioner and turned down the same vide impugned order dated 29.10.2015. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders are against the law and facts of the case; that the order of imposing major penalty of removal from service is a harsh order which was passed without hearing the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that after proper inquiry proceedings dismissal' order was passed; that the respondent is a public limited company having no statutory rules, as such, no writ petition is maintainable; further submits that the petitioner filed petition before NIRC on 05.08.2013 and withdrew the same on 03.07.2014 by making misrepresentation that he has filed a Writ Petition No, 4864/2014 before this Court on 03.05.2014 whereas said writ petition was withdrawn on 19.01.2015 on false grounds. Thereafter. the petitioner filed another writ petition No, 14620/2015 by challenging the same orders which was disposed of and direction passed to the respondents department to treat it as a representation of the petitioner; that the respondents department dismissed the said representation after hearing the petitioner as the petitioner was involved in heinous crime of theft of gas; that the case of the petitioner falls under the principle of master and servant, as such, writ petition is not maintainable.
5. Heard Record perused.
6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner filed grievance petition under Section 33 of the IRA, 2012 before the National Industrial Relations Commission Bench at Lahore on 11.06.2013 challenging his dismissal order dated 24.09.2012, later he withdrew said petition vide order dated 03.07.2014 which is as under:--- "The file has been placed before me on an application for withdrawal of the petition. Petitioner states that he wants to withdraw the petition to approach the proper. forum. He is allowed to do so.
The petition is disposed - of as having been withdrawn. There is no order as to - cost. File be consigned to the record room after due completion."
It is interesting that before filing Writ Petition No, 4864/2014, the petitioner filed grievance petition which fact was not disclosed in the said writ petition and subsequently petitioner withdrew the said writ petition on 19.01.2015 without disclosing the already withdrawal of his grievance petition from NIRC against the afore-mentioned orders. The petitioner also filed , another Writ Petition No, 14620/2015 against the same orders which was also disposed of with the direction to respondent No 2/Managing Director, SNGPL to treat the petition as a representation of the petitioner and decide it as per law. The respondents department after treating it as representation of the petitioner dismissed the same vide order dated 29.10.2015.
7. Admittedly, the Sui Northern Gas Pipelines is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and listed with Stock Exchange of Pakistan and is being run through its.
Board of Directors constituted under its Memorandum and Articles of Association which fact has candidly been described in the Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights vide letter No, JSO/LS- 9/42 (3561), dated 29.07.2005 stated as under:--- "Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Law. It is neither a Ministry nor Division nor an Attached Department of a Division, it cannot make reference to this Division:"
Further the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources in letter dated 15.07.2006 stated as under:-- "Law, Justice and Human. Rights Division is, therefore, requested to not nominate any advocate for SNGPL as it is a non-funded gas company and its matters are managed by its Board of Directors without any involvement of Government of Pakistan under Companies Ordinance, 1984."
Undoubtedly, the petitioner is employee of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited which is not governed by any statutory rules, as such, writ petition is not maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of .Pakistan resolved this issue in Civil Petition No, 104-L/2013 titled as Muhammad Nasim Asif, etc. v.
SNGPL, etc., vide order dated 13.03.2013, relevant portion whereof is reproduced as under:-- "Instead, the petitioners had chosen to approach the Lahore High Court, Lahore through a Writ Petition which was otherwise not competent without availing of the statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioners before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. Apart from that - petitioners' service with the Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited was not governed by any statutory rules and, thus, we have not been able to take any legitimate exception to the impugned order passed by the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby the petitioners' Writ Petition had been dismissed as not maintainable."
Further this issue was also resolved in the Civil Petition No, 24/2015 titled as Nasir Maqsood Qazi v.
Federation of Pakistan, etc., vide order dated 28.10.2015, relevant portion whereof is reproduced as under:--- "2. At the very outset, when we asked the learned ASC appearing on behalf of the petitioner whether the services of the petitioner are regulated by a statute or statutory rules, the answer was in the negative. When so, we do not think any grievance involving no violation of statute or statutory rules is amenable to Article 199 of the Constitution."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan further settled this issue in the case reported as Abdul Wahab & others v. HBL & others (2013 SCM R 1383), relevant portion whereof is reproduced as under: -- It is settled law that, where a service grievance is agitated by a person/employee who is not governed by the statutory rules of service, before the High Court(s), in terms of Article 199 of the- Constitution such petition shall not maintainable; reference in this behalf can be made to PLD 2016 SC 676 (Pakistan International Airline Corporation v. Tanweer-ur-Rehman) and. PLD 2011 SC 132 (Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Limited v. Iqbal Nasir) (note: the question however if that is possible in terms of Article 199(1)(c), we have deferred)."
8. What has been discussed above, this writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed accordingly.