' ALLAH BAKHSH, J.-The petitioner Syed Qamar Shah has by this Constitutional petition called in question the orders passed by the respondents on 17-1-1982 whereby he was retired from service and their subsequent order on 6-4-1982 whereby his retirement was changed to termination of service. These orders are alleged to be without jurisdiction and lawful authority, mala fide and void.
2. The petitioner served the Co-operative Bank, Peshawar from July, 1942 upto 31st December, 1963 and joined Australasia Bank Limited as a Manager on 1-1-1964. The said bank was merged with the Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited, with effect from 1-7-1974. The respondents vide their order, dated 17- 1-1982, copy Annexure A, directed his retirement from service under rule 17(1) of the Banks (Staff)
Service Rules, 1981 which pertains to superannuation and retirement. Though he had not completed 25 years of service with the Allied Bank of Pakistan he accepted its direction, handed over the charge of his office and proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement. The respondent 1 per his order, dated 17-1-1982, copy Annexure 'E' changed his retirement to termination of his service under rule 15(1) ibid on the ground that he was found not to have completed 25 years of service. Both these orders have now been assailed by the petitioner.
3. The banking business in Pakistan was nationalised by the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974 which came into force on 1st day of January, 1974. In pursuance of subsection (3) of section 15 of the Act, the Pakistan Banking Council published a scheme per notification, dated 8th April, 1974 to be called the Banks (Amalgamation) Scheme, 1974 whereby among other things the Pak Bank Ltd., the Sarhad Bank Ltd. And the Lahore Commercial Bank Ltd. Were amalgamated with Australasia Bank Ltd. On and from the 1st July, 1974 the name of the Australasia Bank Ltd. Stood changed to the Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. The Australasia Bank Ltd. Had been incorporated under the Indian Companies Act as limited public company on 3rd day of December, 1942. The petitioner had joined this bank on 1-1-1964 and had not rendered services for 25 years when the order of his retirement was passed on 17-1-1982.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner had been retired from service on superannuation under rule 17 of the Allied Bank Ltd. (Staff) Service Rules, 1981 and under the mistaken impression that he had completed 25 years of service with the bank. The order of retirement was accepted by the petitioner and he acted on it. It was, however, changed mala fide and without lawful authority to one under rule 15(1) of the said Rules into termination of service and it was desirable that on realising its mistake the bank should have re-instated the petitioner and allowed him to discharge his duties till he had attained the age of superannuation. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, maintained that the aforesaid Rules were not statutory rules and since the terms and conditions of the petitioner were not governed by statutory rules he could not invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The principal question that arises is Whether the petitioner was governed by statutory rules and the impugned order was passed in derogation or in violation of these Rules.
5. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. (Staff) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter called the Rules) governed the service of employees of the Bank and were made by the Executive Board under Article 133(vi) of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. Read with section 11(4) of the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974. It is common ground between the parties that the petitioner is governed by these Rules. Article 133(vi) of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Bank reads as under :-
133. In their conduct of the business of the Company the Directors without any further power or authority from the members, may do the following in furtherance, and not in limitation, and without prejudice to the general powers conferred by these Articles, viz. :-
(vi) They may from time to time fix, vary and repeal bye-laws for the regulation of the business of the Company, its officers and servants, or the members of the Company, or any section thereof.
' Subsections (1) and (4) of section 11 of the Bank (Nationalization) Act, 1974 are as follows :-
11. General provisions pertaining to management of banks-(1) A bank shall have an Executive Board consisting of a President and not less than two and not more than four other members to be appointed by the Federal Government.
4. In the exercise of their powers the Executive Board and the President of a bank incorporated by or under any special law shall not be subject to restrictions which do not apply to the Executive Board of the President of a bank registered under the Companies Act, 1913.
' By virtue of section 8 of the Banks (Nationalization) Act every person holding office in any bank as chairman, director or chief executive by whatever name called, other than a person who held such office by virtue of his appointment or nomination by the Federal Government or the State Bank, stood removed from his office on the commencing day of the Act. Thus, the directors mentioned in Article 133 (ibid) stood removed and an Executive Board was constituted in their stead. It was the Executive Board of the Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. Which made these Rules. The Executive Board is no doubt a creature of the statute, namely, Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974 and under Article 133(vi) it was competent to fix, vary and repeal bye-laws for the regulation of the business of the public limited company, its officers, servants or members. The Executive Board was vested with the rule-making powers by Artiste 133 (ibid) and not by the Banks (Nationlization) Act. As a matter of fact, the rules were not made by the Executive Board in exercise of any authority conferred on it by the said Act as no specific provision in this context is contained in the Act. The irresistible conclusion one would, in the circumstances, arrive at would be that these Rules were not framed by the Executive Board under any Statute but are made in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Article 133 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association and these cannot be construed as statutory rules.
6. It is contemplated by section 5 of the Banks (Nationalization) Act that the ownership, management and control of all banks shall stand transferred to, and vest in, the Federal Government on the commencing day. Section 13 pertains to the provisions regarding staff and, according to it, all officers and other employees of a bank shall-continue in their respective offices and employments on the same terms and conditions, remuneration and rights as to pension and gratuity, as were applicable to them immediately before the commencing day. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both these sections when read together would indicate that the Federal Government became the owner of the Allied Bank of Pakistan and all officers and other employees of the bank became public servants. It is true that the ownership, management and control of the bank stood transferred to the Federal Government and all the officers and other employees of the bank continued in their respective offices and employments on the same terms and conditions as were applicable to them previously. C It cannot, however, by any stretch' of imagination be said that all the officers and other employees became public servants governed not by their previous terms and conditions but by the rules applicable to the employees of the Central Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Muhammad Ramzan Ansari v. Government of Pakistan etc. (1) in support of his contention. The facts of this case are, however, distinguishable and the dictum laid down in it is of little assistance to the petitioner. The dispute was between an employee and the National Bank of Pakistan. It is in the judgment that the employee was governed by the Staff Service Rules framed with the approval of the Central Government by the Board and had statutory force as they were made under Statutory Bye-laws which were in turn framed under section 32, subsection (2) of Ordinance XIX of 1949. In the instant case the Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. (Staff) Service Rules, 1981 are not statutory rules and their violation cannot be complained' of in the writ petition.
7. The question of status of the employees of the Pakistan International Airlines, a statutory corporation, came up for consideration in A. George v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation
(1) and it was remarked that the P.
1. A. C. Did not function as a Government Department or as a servant or agent of the Government.
The Corporation was a statutory body created by an Act and the Central Government exercised various controls over it but it was not a branch of the Government and as an employer it was quite distinct from the Central Government. It was held that the servants of the Corporation could not be treated as the employees of the State, they were not entitled to any guarantees and safeguards under the Constitution or any Statute or the Rules having the force of law and the relationship between the corporation and its employees was purely that of a master and a servant under the general law, The Service Code of P. I. A. C. Did not mention of any statutory authority under which it was framed and did not have the force of statutory rules. This view was approved of in Muhammad Yousaf Shah v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (2) and was endorsed recently in Principal, Cadet College, Kohat and another v. Muhammad Shoab Qureshi (3) wherein their Lordships observed at page 176 as under :- It is, therefore, evident that where the conditions of service of an employee of a statutory body are governed by statutory rules, any action taken against him in derogation or in violation of the said rules can be set aside by a writ petition. However, where his terms and conditions are not governed by statutory rules but only by regulations, instructions or directions, which the institution or body, in which he is employed has issued for its internal use, any violation thereof will not, normally, be enforced through a writ petition.
' It is manifest from what has been reproduced above that where the j terms and conditions of service of an employee of a statutory body are not governed by statutory rules he cannot complain of any violation of the rules through a writ petition. It follows that the terms and conditions of) service of the petitioner are not governed by statutory rules, and, as such,1 he cannot invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
' In the result, the writ petition being incompetent is dismissed and the parties are left to bear their own costs.
Writ .
(1) PLD 1911 Lab. 748 (2) PLD 1981 SC 224
(3) PLD 1984 SC 170