ZAFFAR HOSSAIN MIRZA, J.--This judgment will govern Civil Appeals Nos. 107/82 and 108/82 as common questions of law arise for determination therein.
2. The respondents in these to appeals are the employees of the National Bank of Pakistan, the appellant herein. They were promoted to various posts in the Bank service but subsequently the promotions of the respondents were cancelled without hearing then) or affording them an opportunity of showing cause. They, therefore, challenged the action of the appellant Bank by means of constitutional petitions, which were allowed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court by separate judgments on similar grounds. One of the objections raised and repelled by the learned Single Judge was related to the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court on the ground that the impugned orders were passed at Karachi. The Bank, therefore, filed intra-Court appeals against the judgments passed by the learned Single Judge. These Intra-Court Appeals were, however, dismissed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court vide separate judgments, dated 12-5-1981, on the preliminary ground that under proviso to section 2 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. Intra- Court Appeals were not competent in these cases, since remedy by way of appeal was available against the orders passed by the authorities of the Bank which were impugned in the constitutional petitions.
3. By a common order leave was granted in view of the conflict of opinion in the Lahore High Court on the question of territorial jurisdiction and also to consider the other question whether employees of the statutory corporations, as in the present cases, hold statutory posts and enjoyed statutory tenure of service so as to avail of the remedy provided under Article 199 of the Constitution read with the relevant provisions of the Provisional Constitutional Order, for enforcing their rights arising out of rules and by-laws framed by the statutory body.
4. On the legal question last mentioned above and noticed in the leave granting order we have referred in the connected Civil Appeal. No. 104 of 1982 (National Bank of Pakistan v. Manzoorul Hassan), to the Principal, Cadet College, Kohat v. Muhammad Shoab Qureshi PLD 1984 SC 170 in which it was held that in such cases where statutory rules govern the service conditions of an employee, constitutional petition to enforce, the rights of the employees would be competent. It is, therefore, not necessary to determine this question and the learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed this point on that account.
5. On the question of maintainability of the intra-Court Appeals also the issue now stands finally settled by the judgment of this Court in Mst. Karim Bibi and others v. Hussain Bakhsh and another PLD 1984 SC 344 in which it was held that no Intra-Court Appeal would be competent before a Bench of to or more Judges of the High Court from an order made by a Single Judge of that Court if the constitutional petition arises out of any proceedings in which the law applicable pro--vided for at least one appeal to any Court, Tribunal or Authority against the original order, even though no appeal may actually have been filed against the original order before such Court, Tribunal or Authority. Learned counsel for the appellants also stated that as the present appeals arise out of the judgments passed by the Division Bench on the Intra-Court Appeals, if rules of service applicable to the respondents have the status of statutory rules, then the Intra-Court Appeals were not competent. It may be mentioned that the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1953, do provide for an appeal under rule 43 against any order imposing penalties under rule 42, which deals with disciplinary matters. In this view of the matter the appeals filed by the present appellants before the Division Bench were rightly dismissed. These appeals, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed with costs.