Through the instant intra Court appeal, the appellants impugns the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the learned Judge-in-Chambers whereby writ petition No.406/2020 filed by them, was dismissed as not maintainable. Through the said writ petition, the petitioners / appellants sought the restoration of 50% commutation and enhancement in pension being paid to them in accordance ' with the Federal Government employees.
2. The matter agitated by the appellants in the said writ petition clearly pertains to the terms and conditions of their service with Pakistan International Airlines Corporation ("PIAC").
3. In the case of Pakistan International Airline Corporation Vs. Tanveer-ur-Rehman (PLD 2010 SC 676), 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."
The law laid down in the case of Pakistan International Airline Corporation Vs. Tanveer-ur- Rehman (supra) was reiterated in the case of Shoua Junejo Vs. PIA (2012 SCMR 1681) wherein it was held as follows:-
7. In our opinion in the case of Tanweer-ur-Rehman and others (Supra) it was hold that as PIA was performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, it was amenable to the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. However it was also held in. no uncertain terms that since PIA did not have any statutory rules therefore whenever an issue arose as to the violation of the terms and conditions of its employees then the same would not be open to interference by the learned High Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction as the relationship of its employees with PIA is that of master and servant. No distinction was made by this Court in such relationship vis-a-vis disputes of serving employees and those who had been compulsorily retired etc. The pronouncement in Tanweer-ur-Rehman and others (Supra) was affirmed by this Court in the case of Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd. through Chairman v. Nasir and others (PLD 2011 SC 132) wherein again it was held that though the Corporation was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court as the majority of its shares were held by the Government however, in absence of statutory rules the principle of master and servant was applicable and the employees of the Corporation have to seek their remedy elsewhere on the allegation of violation of terms and conditions of service."
4. In the cases reported as PIA Corporation Vs. Suleman Alam Rizvi (2015 SCMR 1545), Mrs. Aneesa Rehman Vs. PIA (1994 SCMR 2232), Fouzia Khan Vs. Chairman / CEO, PIA (2020 PLC (C.S.)
1078), Sher Muhammad Zafar Vs.Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (2019 PLC (C.S.)
709), Khalid Hassan Khan Vs. Pakistan International Airlines (2013 YLR 84 Aziz-ur-Rehman Chaudhry Vs. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (2017 PLC (C.S.) 745), and Zafar Iqbal Vs. PIA (2011 PLC (C.S.) 259), it has been held inter alia that since PIAC does not have statutory service rules or regulations, the relationship between PIAC and its employees is that of master and servant, and therefore such employees could not invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to agitate a dispute pertaining to the terms and conditions of their service.
5. In view of the above, the instant appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The appellants are at liberty to agitate their grievance against PIAC before the appropriate forum.