MUHAMMAD TARIO AFRIDI, J.- This consolidated judgment disposes of the following five writ petitions, as all involve analogous legal issues regarding regularization of services of the petitioners allegedly serving the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) on a non-permanent basis: i. W.P.No.825-B/2018.
Muhammad Jamshed Khan and others v. National Bank of Pakistan and others. ii. W.P.No.162-B/2019.
Imran Ullah v. National Bank of Pakistan and others.
W.P.No.866-B/2020.
Sahib Nawaz Khan and another v. National Bank of Pakistan and others. iv. W.P.No.724-B/2022.
Muhammad Wasim v. National Bank of Pakistan and others. v. W.P.No.91-B/2023.
Amir Nawab v. National Bank of Pakistan and others.
2. The petitioners in all these constitutional petitions, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, have sought regularization of their services from the dates of their respective initial appointments along with all consequential benefits. They claim to be working in the respondent-Bank in various temporary or contractual capacities for a considerable length of time. The petitioners have specifically placed reliance on the principle of equal treatment enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution and judgments of the superior courts wherein similarly placed employees were granted regularization by the respondent-Bank.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed against different posts in various branches of the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP), and ever since their appointment, they have been performing duties continuously, diligently, and without break. They contend that despite the availability of sanctioned posts and satisfactory performance, their services have not been regularized, whereas other similarly placed employees, appointed in a similar manner, have been granted regularization by the Bank, thereby constituting discrimination. The petitioners have drawn the attention of this Court to various instances where individuals with similar terms of appointment were later regularized by the Bank through internal orders and policy decisions. They submit that they too are entitled to the same treatment in accordance with the principles of fairness, equality, and non-discrimination.
4. On notice, the respondents entered appearance and filed para-wise comments. They have opposed the maintainability of the writ petitions and denied any vested right of the petitioners to seek regularization. It is contended that the petitioners were appointed on purely temporary basis against non-sanctioned posts, and their engagement was governed by specific contractual terms and the Bank's internal rules and policies. The respondents further argued that regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless the same is permissible under law and supported by the sanctioned strength and recruitment process duly approved by the competent authority.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, maintains that the Bank's own conduct in regularizing other employees who were similarly situated constitutes a binding precedent and creates a legitimate expectation in favour of the petitioners. It is further argued that denying them regularization while extending such benefit to others is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, and 25 of the Constitution.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record.
7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon careful examination of the record, it is evident that all the petitioners were initially engaged through third-party contractors, namely M/S A.A. Janitorial Services (Pvt.) Ltd, Professional Janitorial Services (Pvt.) Ltd and M/S ICON Consultants (Pvt.) Ltd, which are private service provider companies. The appointment letters placed on record have been issued by the said contractors and not by the respondent-Bank. Thus, the petitioners are in fact employees of the said private companies and not of the National Bank of Pakistan.
8. We are afraid the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are performing duties for the respondent-Bank, by itself, does not establish an employment relationship between the petitioners and the Bank. The petitioners have failed to produce any document or evidence that could conclusively prove their direct appointment by the Bank or their absorption in the service of the Bank at any stage. The employment of the petitioners, as is clear from the record, was purely contractual in nature, governed by the terms and conditions stipulated by the contractor companies. None of the contracts executed with the contractors contain any clause pertaining to the petitioners' services with the respondent-Bank. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has consistently held that mere long and continuous contractual service does not confer any vested right for regularization in the absence of a specific statutory provision.
Reference in this regard may be made to the following precedents: i. Vice Chancellor, Bacha Khan University Charsadda v. Tanveer Ahmad and others (2022 PLC (C.S) 85). ii. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Sher Aman and others (2022 SCMR 406). iii. Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. v. Zeeshan Usmani and others (2022 PLC (C.S.) 424) iv. Province of Punjab v. Prof Dr. Javed lqbal and others (2022 SCMR 897).
In all the above cases, the Apex Court held that long or satisfactory service under a contractual arrangement does not in itself vest any right to be regularized unless such right is specifically conferred by law.
9. Furthermore, this Court has serious reservations regarding its jurisdiction in the instant matter.
The petitioners, being employees of a third-party service provider and not the Bank, have failed to establish any enforceable right under the Constitution which has been infringed by the respondent-Bank. The relationship between the petitioners and their employer falls under the realm of private contract, governed by the principle of master and servant, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. It is also pertinent to note that where the relationship of employment itself is disputed, such as in the present case, the matter involves disputed questions of fact that cannot be resolved without recording evidence, a process impermissible under Article 199 of the Constitution. This view has also been affirmed in the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases: i. National Bank of Pakistan v. Sohaib Iftikhar (C.P. No.425-L of 2014, decided on 20.6.2018). ii. National Bank of Pakistan v. Kashif Salah-ud-Din (C.A. Nos.1340 to 1342 of 2014, decided on 03.03.2016).
10. Moreover, this Court has already dismissed identical writ petitions raising similar grounds through its judgments dated 18.10.2023 in W.P. No.2448-P/2018 and 04.06.2024 in W.P. No.983- D/2020, holding that petitions filed by contractual employees of outsourced service providers for regularization are not maintainable under the writ jurisdiction. There is no compelling reason to take a different view in the present matters.
11. Lastly, it may be observed that the appropriate forum for the petitioners, if they consider themselves "workmen," is to pursue remedy under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, where the status and rights of employees engaged through third-party outsourcing can be adjudicated properly, and the principal employer can be held accountable if found liable under the labour laws.
12. For the reasons stated above, all the captioned writ petitions being W.P. No.825-B/2018, W.P.
No.162-B/2019, W.P. No.866-B/2020, W.P. No.724-B/2022, and W.P. No.91- B/2023 are hereby dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioners, however, shall be at liberty to avail any remedy available to them under the relevant labour laws, if so advised.