1. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.-The petitioner has challenged the order of termination of his service dated 30th July, 1981 by the respondent as illegal, void and mala fide. In two other petitions Nos. 695 and 696- of 1981, filed against the respondent challenging similar orders of termination of service we refused to interfere with the orders, on the ground that relationship between the parties is governed under A the law of master and servant in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, in the cases of R. T. H. Janjua v.. N. S. C. (PLD 1974 SC 146) and Lt.-Col. Shujaud--din Ahmed v. Oil and Gas Development Corporation (1971 SCMR 566). The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any distinction in the above two cases dismissed by us summarily on 19-10-1981 and the present case. He, however, urged that in Petitions Nos. 695 and 696 of 1981, the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Salahuddin v. Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillary Ltd. (PLD 1975 SC 244) was not noticed. We have considered Salahuddin's case and in our view this case is of no assistance to the learned counsel. The following discussion at page 262 of the report will illustrate the point decided by the Supreme Court with regard to powers of this Court to issue writ against a joint stock Company: "In the light of the foregoing discussion, the position of a public limited company, in relation to the applicability of the various classes of Article 201 of the Interim Constitution, or Article 199 of the Constitution of 1973, may be summed up by saying that while it cannot ordinarily be regarded as a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a province or a local authority, simply for the reason that its functioning is regulated by a statute ; yet nevertheless the offices held by its Directors and its Chief Executive, which term would include a Managing Director, must be regarded as public officers inasmuch as they involved the performance of public duties which are of the greatest importance to the public interest in the field of the operation of public joint stock Companies under the Company Law. As a consequence, although a joint stock Company may not be amenable to the issuance of a writ under clauses (2) (a) (i) and (2) (a) (ii) of Article 201 of the interim Constitution, but its Directors and the Chief Executive are within the purview of clause (2) (b) (ii) of the said Article which permits the High Court to issue a writ in the nature of quo warranty, requiring a person within its territorial jurisdiction holding or purporting to hold a public office to show under what authority of law he claims to hold that office."
2. The learned counsel further relied upon a case decided by a D.B. Of this .Court in the case of Walt Ahmad Khan v. Government of Sind and another (P. No. 177/77) but that case is also distinguishable as the learned Judges in that case came to the conclusion that the K. D. A. Was a local authority and as such was amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. No other point was urged. The petition is dismissed summarily.