' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The Petitioner, an Officer earlier employed by one of the nationalized Banks- -respondent No, 1, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 7- 10-1985 whereby the Constitution Petition filed by him was dismissed.
2. The Petitioner was employed as an officer in the Allied Bank of Pakistan and had rendered long service. He absented himself from duty on 20th November, 1982 and started submitting medical certificates asking for leave which was not granted to him. In March, 1983, he applied for voluntary retirement after rendering twenty-five years service. His request remained unattended and a termination order was handed over to him which is dated 19th of March, 1985 and he was treated as on unauthorised absence. He challenged this action by filing a Constitution Petition which was dismissed mainly on the ground that no law or statutory rule was violated and the Staff Rules did not qualify as the statutory rules nor was the employment of the Petitioner statutory.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that after the nationalization of banks the Executive Board controlled the employees and the
4. The contention of the learned counsel could have some merit if a specific provision, namely section 13 of the banks nationalization Act 1974, had not made provision for it. That provision referred to by the learned Judge preserves and protects the nature of the employment and the terms and conditions on which it is enjoyed subject to certain statutory provisions which are not in dispute in the proceedings before us. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Staff Rules make provision for passing of such an order as has been passed in the case in hand. As regards the contention that there is a stigma with regard to unauthorised absence during the period after 20th November, 1982, all that can be said at this stage is that is a fact not denied by the Petitioner himself because he had not obtained proper leave. He had only made applications about it. There appears no merit and leave to appeal is refused.