' GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, C. J.-The learned counsel assails through this Shariat petition the rule 15(1) of the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff Service) Rules, 1980, mainly on the following grounds :-
(a) The employees of the National Bank of Pakistan have become civil servants after the Bank was nationalised and, therefore, they have the same protection of show-cause notice as held in S. S. M.
No, 263/A/83 ;
(b) It is the responsibility of the Government to provide job/employment to every citizen and, therefore, the protection will be available to all those persons who have been given the jobs ;
(c) As the protection is provided to 'workmen' of the National Bank of Pakistan, the rules of the same terms and conditions suffer from discrimination and, therefore, repugnant to Islam ;
(d) The omission of the protection in the case of the Officers is against 'adl' and advances fasad'.
(e) The impugned rule allows arbitrary use of power by the competent authority and is, therefore, liable to be stuck down ;
(f) The same rule reduces the employees to the level of the private servants and leaves them at the whim and caprice of the employer.
2. We have heard the learned counsel at length but do not find any justification to take a view different from the one already taken. A similar matter about the same bank came up before this Court in Islam Hussain v. National Bank of Pakistan, S. P. No, 9/K of 1983, were a Bench of six Judges of this Court held that the case of the such employees was distinguishable from those of the civil servants in S. S. M. No, 204/P/83, S. S. M. No, 84/S/84 and S. S. M. No, 71/B/84 etc.
3. It will also be useful to reproduce the following paragraphs (50 to 53) of the judgment in S. S. M.
No, 263/P/1983 for facility of ready reference to say that the respondent-Bank, being a commercial' undertaking its employee would not enjoy the abovesaid protection :- "50 One of the grounds of safeguard of Civil Servant rights is that the Government is under a duty to provide employment to people. Consequently it cannot throw out its servants except for cause.
As Will be seen later there is ample justification in Sharia for this."
"51 This principle cannot apply to private servants other than civil servants unless any law is made for safeguard of their interest or service tenure."
"52, Applying this principle it would be clear that the service of Cantonment Board as constituted under the authority of Cantonments Act II of 1924. Which is a local authority or of the WAPDA and Universities which are Statutory Corporations cannot be held to be entitled in Sharia to any other safeguard except safeguards pointed out in the above judgment of Daryyab Yousaf Qureshi v.
Chairman WAPDA P L, D 1983 F SC 17."
"53. We are in agreement with the argument of the learned counsel of the Provincial Governments Deputy Attorney-General and Moulvi Sirajul Haq, learned counsel for the WAPDA, that in some cases particularly in respect of statutory Corporations dealing with commercial business it may not he in public interest to provide such safeguards. Shariat Petition No, 1/1 of 1984 and Shariat Petition No, 21/L, of i983 and Shariat Petition No, 3/L of 1963 are, therefore. Liable to be dismissed.
WAPDA Act and laws relating to Universities will be examined in other respects. The Cantonment Act II of 1924, has been examined by the Council of Islamic Ideology and it is unnecessary for this Court to re-examine it."
4. Even the other points have no merit. The workmen and officers are two different classes and as there is no discrimination in any of them the plea carries no weight. Further, there is no injustice when a person is denied something in which he has no vested right. TheC plea about arbitrary use of power ;s also unjustified because a representation to another higher authority is never barred.
Thus, if there is any arbitrary or whimsical exercise of power at one level it may be rectified at the other.
5. In view of the above, we think that the National Bank of Pakistan is a commercial organization and, therefore, the impugned rule 15(1) is not repugnant to Sharia. This petition consequently, has no merit and is dismissed.