1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J.---This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is filed by the petitioner to challenge the order dated 30-1-1986 passed by Acting Managing Director of respondent No, 3, transferring the petitioner to Shandadkot Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Shandadkot, and the subsequent order dated 11-3-1986 passed by the respondent No, 2 terminating the services of the petitioner from Larkana Sugar Mills Ltd.
2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that respondent No, 3 is a private limited company, against whom no writ can be issued. In reply to the above preliminary objection, Mr. Muhammad Jamil, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon the case of Salahuddin v. Frontier Sugar Mills PLD 1975 SC 245. The case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the circumstances of the present case as no writ of quo warranto is being asked by the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed the following reliefs in the petition:- "(a) Declare that the order of transferring the petitioner from Larkana Sugar Mills to Shandadkot Textile Mills Ltd., passed by the respondent No, 2 and relieving order dated 30-1-1986 passed by the respondent No, 3 and the order dated 11-3-1986 terminating the services of the petitioner by the respondent No, 2 have been issued without lawful authority, with mala fide intentions and are of no legal effect;
(b) Direct the respondent No, 3 to allow the petitioner to continue his service with Larkana Sugar Mills Limited as Manager (F&A);
(c) Any other relief this Hon'ble Court. May deem just and proper; and
(d) Award cost of the petition."
2. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the order dated 10-3-1985 issued by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Production under section 4 of the Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (Dissolution) Ordinance, 1984, whereby Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation has been declared to be a private limited company as and from the date of registration of PIDC as a private limited company as mentioned in the certificate issued under the Companies Act. It is also provided in the aforesaid order that the project specified in the schedule of the notification shall stand transferred from the date of the notification to the subsidiaries including all shares held by the Corporation. Larkana Sugar Mills has been mentioned at serial No, 3 of the schedule of the aforesaid notification. It may be mentioned here that by a subsequent ,notification dated 27-3-1985 issued by the Government of Pakistan under section 4 of the P.I.D.C.
3. Ordinance, 1985, the notification dated 10-3-1985 was made effective from 1st April, 1985. It is, therefore, quite clear that as from 1st April, 1985, Larkana Sugar Mills became a private limited company and was not subject to any control by the P.I.D.C. The grievance of the petitioner in the case is that as the order transferring him from Larkana Sugar Mills Ltd. To Shandadkot Textile Mills was passed by the P.I.D.C. And the subsequent order for dismissal of the services was also passed by the P.I.D.C., therefore, these orders were wholly without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the order for transfer of petitioner was not passed by the P.I.D.C. But it was passed by the Chairman of Larkana Sugar Mills. It is not necessary for us to decide this controversy here as the petition can be disposed of on preliminary objection. It is quite clear to us that no writ can be issued for granting the reliefs claimed by the petitioner against respondent, Larkana Sugar Mills which is admittedly a private limited company. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any action of respondent No, 2, it is open to him to follow such remedy as is available to him under the law but this could not furnish any ground for issuing writ against respondent No, 3.
4. We accordingly uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the petition.
5. ' There will be no order as to costs.