1. SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, J.---This High Court Appeal is directed against the order dated 8-4- 1993 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Filed by the appellant, was dismissed.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the appellant filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the appellant that he was appointed as Assistant Manager, Security in Administration Department of the Respondent No. 1 in Pay Group VII. The appellant joined the respondent No. 1 organization on 24-12-1989. The respondent No. 1 vide Letter bearing No. PR/P-48020/1990 dated 24th June, 1990informed him that his service with the Corporation have been confirmed as Assistant Manager (Security) with effect from 24-12-1989 in Pay Group VII. It is the case of the appellant that on or about 15th September, 1990 he has been informed through reliable sources that the respondent No. 2 has issued an Office Memorandum to the respondent No. 1 whereby it has been recommended that the service of the appellant be either dismissed or his service be regularized in Group VI by the respondent No. 1 and consequently the respondent is planning to take action on the basis of the said Memorandum by either dismissing him from service and/or regularising his service in Group VI which is a lower pay group and cadre to Group VII in which the appellant was initially appointed and later on confirmed by the respondent No. 1.
3. Alongwith the plaint the appellant filed application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. For issue of interim injunction, restraining the respondents from terminating the appellant or from reducing the appellant to a lower pay group and cadre, without recourse to the provisions of law and regulation of PIAC. The respondents opposed the application. The respondents pleaded that relationship between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 was that of servant and master and that the appellant had no statutory right to invoke jurisdiction of this Court.
4. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the application observed that the appellant is governed by Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985, which are not statutory m nature. He observed that in the instant case there is no dismissal or termination of services of the appellant.
5. We have heard Mr. Farooq H. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the parties in support of the above appeal. He raised the same contention as raised before the learned Single Judge.
6. The contention raised by the learned counsel was considered in a number of cases. In the case of Captain Rafiq Ahmad Shaikh PLD 1992 Karachi 190 it was held that employees of statutory Corporation do not acquire status of Government Employees nor are the guarantees given by the Corporation applicable to their case. It was also held that PIAC is a statutory body created by the Act and although it is rendered amenable to the exercise of various controls by the Federal Government, nevertheless it is not a department of the Government and as an employer, it is quite different from the Federal Government. It was held in the case of Mahmood Hussain v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and others 1989 PLC (C.S.) 549 that in the absence of any statutory rules, the terms and conditions of service of an employee of a Corporation are to be governed by the law of Master and Servant and such employee would not be entitled to any Constitutional guarantees nor can a writ be issued in such a case. In the case of Riazuddin PLD 1992 SC 531' it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that relationship between a Corporation and its employees, is that of master and servant. In case of wrongful dismissal of an employee of the Corporation, his remedy is to claim damages and not the remedy of re--instatement except where relationship between a Corporation and its employees is regulated by statutory provisions and there is any breach of such provisions, in which case an employee may maintain an action for reinstatement. In the instant case there is admittedly no dismissal or termination of services of the appellant. , The consistent view of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court has been that the employees of statutory Corporations do not acquire the status of Government Servants nor are the guarantees given by the Constitution applicable in their cases. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, in our view, right in rejecting the application, according to the law of Master and Servant, the contract of service cannot be specifically enforced. It follows, therefore, that no temporary injunction can either be granted in such case.
7. It is clear that exercise of jurisdiction in the instant case is neither fanciful nor in any manner arbitrary.
8. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has exercised his jurisdiction legally and properly. The High Court Appeal is dismissed in limine.
9. The above are the reasons for the short order dated 26-4-1993 dismissing the appeal in limine on conclusion of the arguments.