MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J:- Through the instant writ petition the petitioner, impugns the order dated 27.07.2018 passed by the Human Resource Department of Oil and Gas Development Company Limited ("OGDCL") dismissing his appeal against the order dated 19.06.2018 whereby major penalty of removal from service was imposed on him.
2. The record shows that OGDCL offered appointment as Senior Security Officer to the petitioner on terms and conditions set out in OGDCL's letter dated 30.11.2005. After the said offer was accepted by the petitioner, he joined his duties on 30.11.2005. A formal letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner on 16.03.2006. Vide letter dated 28.02.2012, the petitioner was offered regular appointment as Senior Security Officer with effect from 03.01.2011 when his services were regularized. It is not disputed that the terms and conditions of the petitioner's employment with OGDCL are governed by the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited Employees' Service Rules, 2002 ("the 2002 Rules") which do not have the status of statutory rules having been made by the Board of Directors of OGDCL.
3. On 30.09.2013, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the issuance of a charge sheet. On 27.12.2013, a show cause notice was issued to him. The disciplinary proceedings culminated in the issuance of Office Memorandum dated 27.01.2014 whereby the major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on the petitioner. His departmental appeal was rejected on 17.03.2014. The said orders were assailed by the petitioner in writ petition No.526/2014 which was disposed of vide order dated 12.06.2015 by setting-aside the appellate order dated 17.03.2014 and directing OGDCL to afford an opportunity of a hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with the law. OGDCL, after affording an opportunity of hearing to him on 06.08.2015, passed the order dated 05.10.2015 imposing the very same penalty on the petitioner.
The said order dated 05.10.2015 was also assailed by the petitioner in writ petition No.3266/2015 which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 18.03.2016. The said writ petition was allowed primarily on the ground that the major penalty was imposed on the petitioner on the basis of allegations which did not find mention in the statement of allegations issued to him. Through the said judgment, OGDCL was given the option to initiate proceedings afresh if there was sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner on the basis of the allegation mentioned in the order dated 27.01.2014 which was not a part of the charge sheet / statement of allegations. Intra Court appeal No.144/2016 filed by OGDCL against the said judgment was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19.04.2017.
4. On 21.02.2018, a fresh charge sheet and statement of allegations were issued to the petitioner to which he submitted a reply on 05.03.2018. On 12.03.2018, an inquiry committee was constituted by the authorized officer. The inquiry committee, after inquiring into the charges levelled against the petitioner, submitted an inquiry report on 04.04.2018. The disciplinary proceedings culminated in the order dated 19.06.2018 whereby major penalty of removal from service was imposed on him.
The petitioner s departmental appeal was turned down vide order dated 27.07.2018. The said concurrent orders have been assailed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to OGDCL's letter dated 12.03.2018 whereby the authorized officer had constituted a three-member inquiry committee and submitted that as per OGDCL's letter dated 12.03.2018 for an officer in Executive Group-IV (EG-IV), the Authority was General Manager whereas the authorized officer was Manager; and that the letter dated 12.03.2018 constituting the inquiry committee was issued by an officer not holding the position of Manager but of Acting Manager (Administration). Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions in reiteration of the grounds taken in the instant writ petition.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OGDCL raised an objection to the maintainability of the instant petition on the ground that since the terms and conditions of the petitioner's service with OGDCL were not governed by any statutory rule, the instant petition was not maintainable.
7. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition have been set out in sufficient detail in paragraphs 2 to 4 above and need not be recapitulated.
8. I deem it appropriate in the first instance to decide the objection taken by the learned counsel for OGDCL to the maintainability of the instant petition on the ground that the petitioner having been employed by OGDCL after the promulgation of the Oil and Gas Development Corporation (Re-Organization) Ordinance, 2001 ("the 2001 Ordinance"), the terms and conditions of his service are governed by the 2002 Rules, which do not have a statutory status.
9. The 2001 Ordinance was promulgated on 05.07.2001. Section 1(3) of the said Ordinance provides that it shall be deemed to have taken effect on 23.10.1997. Section 3 of the said Ordinance provides that the Oil and Gas Development Corporation shall be deemed to have been converted into a company limited by shares with effect from the date of incorporation of the company with the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan under the Companies Ordinance, 1984.
10. It is well settled that a writ petition is maintainable where the respondent / authority violated any provision of law or statutory rules. Employees, who are governed by statutory rules, can avail the remedy of filing a writ petition before the High Court. It is also well settled that the principle of master and servant was applicable to the employees whose services were not governed by any statutory rules. Employee of a company, owned by the Government, in the absence of violation of law or any statutory rule, could not press into service the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in order to seek relief with respect to his employment. Reference in this regard may be made to the law laid down in the cases of Samiullah Narago Vs. Federation of Pakistan (2012 PLC (C.S.)
1205), Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited Vs. Iqbal Nasir (PLD 2013 SC 132), and Pakistan International Airline Corporation Vs. Tanveer-ur-Rehman and others (PLD 2010 SC 676). In the latter case, it has been held as follows:- "19. However, this question needs no further discussion in view of the fact that we are not of the opinion that if a corporation is discharging its functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, the aggrieved persons can approach the High Court by invoking its constitutional jurisdiction, as observed hereinabove. But as far as the cases of the employees, regarding their individual grievances, are concerned, they are to be decided on their own merits namely that if any adverse action has been taken by the employer in violation of the statutory rules, only then such action should be amenable to the writ jurisdiction. However, if such action has no backing of the statutory rules, then the principle of Master and Servant would be applicable and such employees have to seek remedy permissible before the Court of competent jurisdiction."
11. The employees of OGDCL, who had been regularly employed prior to the promulgation of the 2001 Ordinance were governed by the Oil and Gas Development Corporation Employees (Service)
Regulations, 1994 ("the 1994 Regulations"), and the terms and conditions of their services were protected under Section 5(1) of the 2001 Ordinance, which reads thus:- "5. Transfer of employees from the Corporation to the Company.-(1) All officers, workmen or other employees of the Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the employees) shall, as on the date of incorporation of the Company, be deemed to be employees of the Company on the same remuneration and other conditions of service, rights and privileges including, but not limited to, provisions as to the pension, provident fund and gratuity, if any, and other matters as were applicable to them before the conversion of the Corporation into Company."
(Emphasis added)
12. It may be mentioned that vide judgment dated 17.11.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in civil petitions No.1359 to 1361/2009, it was held that in view of Section 5 of the 2001 Ordinance, the employees of OGDCL employed prior to the promulgation of the said Ordinance would be governed by the 1994 Regulations, which had been "elevated to a status even higher than that of mere statutory rules."
13. However, the employees of OGDCL employed after the promulgation of the said Ordinance, or the making of the 2002 Rules, their terms and conditions of service were not governed by statutory rules / regulations. The relationship of the latter category with their employer was that of master and servant. Such employees could not file a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution with respect to a matter concerning the terms and conditions of their service.
14. The petitioner, through this writ petition, had raised a grievance pertaining to the terms and conditions of his service with OGDCL / Company. Since he was admittedly employed in OGDCL after its conversion into a company limited by shares, and since the 2002 Rules (which govern the terms and conditions of the petitioner's service with OGDCL) do not have a statutory status having been made by the Board of Directors, I am of the view that he could not invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, regardless of the fact that his earlier writ petitions had been allowed by this Court.
15. This Court in the judgment dated 30.06.2016 passed in writ petition No.1407/2015, titled Muhammad Azhar Khattak Vs. OGDCL etc. has held inter alia that employees appointed in the O.G.D.C.L. after the promulgation of the 2001 Ordinance were not governed by statutory rules and regulations but by rules framed by the Board of Directors of OGDCL which were non-statutory in nature. Furthermore, it was held that such employees could not file a writ petition with respect to a matter concerning the terms and conditions of their service. For the purposes of clarity, paragraph 7 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:- "7. It is obvious from the above, that the employees who were transferred from the Corporation to the Company on the date of incorporation thereof are deemed to be the employees of the Company on the same remuneration and other conditions of service, rights and privileges as were applicable before the said conversion. The legislature, therefore, protected the terms and conditions of those employees who were previously appointed by the Corporation and on its incorporation were transferred and deemed to have been given the status of the employees of the Company with effect from the date on which the said incorporation had taken effect. As a corollary, the employees appointed after the date of incorporation i.e. 23-10-1997 are not the transferred employees from the Corporation to the respondent Company. Section 5 of the Re- Organization Ordinance, therefore, does not extend the protection to such employees who were appointed after the date of incorporation or in other words the said provisions are not attracted to their extent. Moreover, pursuant to a resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the respondent Company for making provisions for the appointment of the servants and the employees and for matters incidental and ancillary thereto, the Oil & Gas Development Company Limited Employees Service Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "Service Rules, 2002") were framed and notified.
The latter rules, therefore, governed the terms and conditions of service of the employees who were appointed after the incorporation of the respondent Company. The said rules are non- statutory in nature since they have not been framed or enacted under powers exercised under a Statute. The Service Regulations, 1991 or the Service Regulations 1994 are, therefore, not attracted in case of employees appointed after the incorporation of the respondent Company, particularly in the light of the provisions of the Re-Organization Ordinance. The employees, therefore, who do not fall within the preview of Section 5 of the Re-Organization Ordinance can neither claim protection of their terms and conditions under the Service Regulations, 1994 nor their grievances relating to the terms and conditions of service could be treated as being governed by statutory rules or regulations."
16. Vide unreported order dated 29.10.2019 passed in writ petition No.3745/2019 titled "Zahid Rafique Vs. OGDCL through its Managing Director" this Court dismissed as not maintainable a writ petition filed by an employee of OGDCL agitating a dispute concerning the terms and conditions of his service. The said writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner in the said case was employed after the conversion of Oil and Gas Development Corporation into a company limited by shares and his terms and conditions of service were governed by the 2002 Rules, which do not have statutory force. The said order dated 29.10.2019 was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.P.No.4826/2019 titled "Zahid Rafique Vs. OGDCL through its Managing Director" which was dismissed vide order dated 17.11.2022.
17. In view of the above, the instant petition is dismissed as not maintainable. After holding that the instant petition is not maintainable, it would not be appropriate to discuss or give a finding on the merits of the case. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for the redressal of his grievance.