ALLAH BAKHSH KHAN, J.-Abbas Khan Khattak has by this Constitu--tional petition called in question an order dated 31-10-1984 passed by respondent No. 2 and has sought a declaration that it was ultra vires and mala fide.
2. The facts forming the background of this petition briefly are that the petitioner was working as a Technical Assistant (N. P. S.-16) in the Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar, respondent No. 1, and his services were placed at the disposal of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. He was sub--sequently absorbed by them permanently on 21-8-1982 and his name was struck off the roll of respondent No. 1 per notification, dated 4th September, 1982. He was communicated an audit report and later on respondent No. 2 served him with a show-cause notice. An enquiry was conducted, during November 1983 and be was served with a second notice on 10-4-1984. The disciplinary proceedings came to an end and the impugned order was passed against him whereby his services were termi--nated under Regulation 14 of PASSCO (Staff) Service Regulations, 1979. He served the respondents with a grievance notice and moved the Labour Court, Peshawar but the petition was returned to him for presentation at the proper forum,
3. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 raised a preliminary objection with regard to the competency of the writ petition in this Court. He strenuously contended that Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation Limited (PASSCO), a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, had its registered office at Lahore where respondents Nos.
2 and 3 functioned, that the impugned order had been passed at Lahore and that the petitioner was serving as an employee of PASSCO at Lahore when the said order was passed against him.
Since the impugned order had been passed at Lahore beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court where the petitioner served those days this Court would have no jurisdiction at all. He for this view of the matter relied on Sabir Din v. Government of Pakistan (1979SCMR555). In this case the respondent whose order was brought under challenge resided at R within the jurisdiction of High Court at L. The petitioner at the time of passing the said order was posted at Muzaffar--abad, Azad Jumma and Kashmir. He brought a writ petition in-the Peshawar High Court but it was held that this Court had no jurisdiction. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court which affirmed the view of this High Court. In the instant case the petitioner as an employee of PASSC was serving at Lahore when the impugned order was passed at Lahore and was served on him at Lahore. It would, therefore, be the Lahore High Court which shall have jurisdiction in the matter and the territorial jurisdiction of this Court stood ousted. It may be pointed out that the learned counsel for the petitioner could not cite any authority for contrary view. It is significant to note that the petitioner had moved Labour Court at Peshawar but the latter held that it had no jurisdiction and ordered that the petition be returned to him for presentation at the proper forum. This order of the Labour Court was not questioned before the Appellate Tribunal and it attained finality. Moreover, the mere fact that Pakistan Forest Institute with whom the petitioner previously served has been arrayed as respondent No. 1 would matter little inasmuch as no relief has been claimed against it.
Furthermore, the cause of action did not arise nor the petitioner resided within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court when the impugned order was passed. We are of the view that this Court lacks jurisdiction and the writ petition has been brought at a wrong forum.
4. The next contention of the learned counsel for the respondents was that PASSCO was a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, had its own Memorandum and Articles of Associa--tion as well as Service Regulations framed thereunder, the petitioner was not governed by statutory rules and, as such, he could not invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
Since his preliminary objec--tion with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court prevails we would not like to give a finding on this contention.
The writ petition fails on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction and is dismissed with costs.