1. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The above petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Constitution' only), filed by the State Life Insurance Employees Federation of Pakistan, was admitted to regular hearing to examine whether the decision of Federal Cabinet dated 22-11-1993 to reinstate in service 208 employees of State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Corporation' only), dismissed in the year 1990 by the then Care-taker Cabinet, violated any of the fundamental rights of the employees of the Corporation guaranteed under the Constitution.
2. ' The material facts alleged in the petition are that during the period from 2-124988 to 48-1990 about 208 persons were appointed in the Corporation through the then placement Bureau on the recommendations of Ministers, M.N.As. And M.PAs. The then Federal Cabinet was dismissed in August 1990 by the President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan whereupon a Care-taker set up tame into existence. The, then Care-taker Government decided that all appointments made in the Corporation in violation of the procedure prescribed under the Rules be terminated forthwith.
3. Accordingly, the following fax message was addressed to the Corporation by the Joint Secretary
(Admn) Comdn, Islamabad:- "PLREFTHISMTRY'S TLX MSG OF EVEN NBR DATED 22-11-1990 REGARDING THE DECISION OF THE CABINET IN RESPECT OF IRREGULAR APPOINTMENTS MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT DECIDES THAT ALL SUCH APPOINTMENTS MADE IN VIOLATION OF PROCEDURE (I.E. WITHOUT ADVERTISEMENT TEST/INTERVIEW AND VIOLATING THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF BUSINESS ETC.) AND WITHOUT PRESCRIBED QUALIFICATIONS SHOULD BE TERMINATED(.) IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE DETAILED COMPLINACE REPORT IN THE MATTER MAY KINDLY BE COMMUNICATED TO THIS MINISTRY BY CLOSE OF OFFICE TODAY POSITIVELY (.) MSG END"
4. ' In pursuance of the above decision, 208 employees of the Corporation were removed from service. It appears that some of the dismissed employees agitated against their dismissal from service before the High Court and in one such case instituted by one Man7.Ar Abbas, the Lahore High Court (Multan Bench), in Writ Petition No, 1823/92 vide judgment dated 25-5-1992, held his dismissal from service as violative of the statutory requirement of the service Rules of the Corporation and accordingly the dismissed employee was declared to be in service of the Corporation. Upon induction of the present Government to power, the Federal Cabinet reconsidered the matter relating to above-referred 208 dismissed employees of the Corporation, removed from the service by the Caretaker Government in 1990, and in principle decided to reinstate them in service on certain terms and conditions. The Cabinet Division, Islamabad accordingly addressed a letter, dated 6-12-1993 to all the Secretaries/Additional Secretaries Incharge, Ministries/Divisions, Islamabad/Rawalpindi, forwarding them the following guidelines/decisions of the Federal Cabinet to be followed while reinstating the employees dismissed from service in pursuance of the decision of Care-taker Government, dated 22-11-1990:- - All persons appointed to posts in BPS-1 to BPS-16 in the Ministries/Divisions of the Federal Government and its attached departments and subordinate offices shall be restored with immediate effect through specific orders in individual cases which will be passed by the Appointing Authorities as laid down in the rules.
(ii) The cases of persons appointed to posts in BPS-17 and above in the Ministries/Divisions of the Federal Government and its attached departments and subordinate offices shall be forwarded by the Administrative Divisions to the Establishment Division for obtaining orders of the competent authority.
(iii) All persons appointed to posts in various public corporations and autonomus and semi- autonomous bodies shall be restored through specific orders in individual cases which will be passed by the competent authority as prescribed in the charter and regulations of such bodies.
(iv) The specific orders in individual cases purporting to restore such appointments will be subject to the following conditions:--
(a) These appointments were duly made on the recommendations of the Placement Bureau, with a proper order of appointment in writing and the services of the persons so appointed were terminated subsequently.
(b) Restoration will purport to restore status quo ante and maintain, as far as possible, the terms and conditions prescribed in the original order of appointment.
(c) All such appointments which were not regularised before their termination will subsequently be regularised through the respective Departmental Selection Committee in accordance with the rules, and until such time, these will continue to be treated as ad hoc appointments.
(d) Upon restoration, the appointees will be posted against available equivalent posts and in cases where such vacancies are not available, against posts which will be created.
(e) Appointments falling in the purview of the FPSC which may have been subsequently filled up through nominations made by the Commission should also be restored, and the ad hoc appointees so restored, may be provided a chance to appear before the Commission alongwith others against these or equivalent posts.
(f) An order of restoration shall not be made in cases where persons so appointed voluntarily resigned or whose services were terminated as a result of disciplinary proceedings or who were appointed for a specified period on contract basis. Likewise, these orders will not apply to employees of the Peoples Programme.
5. ' Administrative' Secretaries will monitor the progress of implementation of the above decision in their respective Ministries/Divisions etc., under intimation to the Establishment and Cabinet Divisions, who shall submit completion of implementation to the Federal Cabinet."
6. ' The petitioner which is a Federation of the Employee of the Corporation. Has challenged the above decision of the Federal Cabinet as violative of the fundamental rights of the employees of the Corporation.
7. ' Mr. Akram Shaikh, A.S.C. Appeared for the petitioners while the ' learned Attorney-General represented the Corporation as well as the Federal Government.
8. ' The learned Attorney-General raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the above petition and contended that firstly, the petitioners have no locus standi to file the above petition, and secondly, the petition does not relate to infringement or enforcement of any fundamental right of 'the petitioners. On merits the learned Attorney-General contended that the decision of the Federal Cabinet is not open to any exception as it only directed reinstatement of the dismissed employees in service to be dealt with in accordance with Service Rules of the Corporation. The learned Attorney-General further contended that in fact in some of the cases the dismissed employees had challenged their dismissal from service through petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution before the Lahore High Court and in one such case Multan Bench of the Lahore High Court, declared the removal of the employee from Service as opposed to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the Service Regulation of the Corporation and accordingly directed his reinstated in service. The learned Attorney-General on the above premises prayed for dismissal of the petition and vacation of the interim order. We have heard, at length, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Attorney-General and some of the affected employees who appeared in person.
9. ' Mr. Muhammad Akram Shaikh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, took us through various provisions (sections 7, 13, 27, 29, 32-A, 40, 40-A, 40-B, 40-C and Rule 39 of Insurance Rules) of the Insurance Act, 1938, the demonstrate that the funds of Insurance Company are so jealously guarded that even a calling of administrative expenditure by the Insurance Company has been fixed/determined under the law. The learned counsel further contended that unlike an ordinary joint stock Company, an Insurance Company engaged in the business of life insurance, is required to keep invested at all times an amount equal to the amount of its liability to the policy-holders for the matured claim as well for the claims which are in the process of maturing. Relying on the above provisions of the Insurance Act, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on account of reinduction/reemployment of 208 employees in the Corporation huge financial burden will be placed on the Corporation which not only have the effect of reducing the income of the Corporation but it may also adversely affect the facilities enjoyed by its existing employees.
10. Replying to the preliminary objection of the learned Attorney-General, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that decision of the Federal Cabinet to reinstate 208 employees in the Corporation has the effect of violating the rights of the employees of the Corporation granted under Articles 3, 5, 18, 24, 25 and 27 of the Constitution.
11. ' We have carefully examined various provisions of the Insurance Act and are of the view that although very stringent provisions have been made in the Insurance Act to guard against unnecessary and unwarranted expenditure by an Insurance Company out of its funds but this does not mean that the Insurance Company cannot incur expenditures within the limits prescribed under the Act. There is nothing on record before us to show, except a bare statement by the learned counsel that there are at present no vacancies in the Corporation and that on account of re-employment of these 208 persons in the Corporation new posts have to be created, to reach the conclusion that the reinstatement of these dismissed employees would cause any financial burden on the Corporation beyond prescribed limits. On the contrary, the learned Attorney-General who is also representing the Corporation in the above case stated before us on instruction from the respondent-Corporation that since 1988, the business of the Corporation has increased many manifold which has necessitated employment of more persons in connection with the business of the Corporation and that there will be no difficulty in accommodating these 208 persons in the employment of the Corporation if they are found eligible for appointment in accordance with the Service Rules of the Corporation. We do not find it necessary to go into this question any further as in the absence of relevant facts, this question is not for deciding the present case. With regard to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that these 208 persons were employed in the Corporation during the years 1988 to 1990 in violation of the Service Rules of the Corporation, suffice it to say that the guidelines laid down by the Federal Cabinet in its decision dated 22-11-1993 fully took care of this aspect of the case. Paragraphs (iii) and (iv) (a) to (f), of the guidelines reproduced above, clearly provided that the restoration of these 208 persons in the service of the Corporation will be subject to the posting orders by the competent authority in individual cases keeping in view the Service Regulations of the Corporation. We, therefore, find no substance in the contention of the petitioner that by ordering reinstatement of these 208 persons in service the Service Regulations of the Corporation have been violated. The petitioner has also contended that the fundamental rights of the employees of the Corporation guaranteed under Articles 4, 5, 18, 24, 25 and 27 of the Constitution have been violated on account of reinstatement of 208 persons in service under the decision of the Federal Cabinet dated 22-11-1993 and as such the petitioners are entitled to maintain the present petition. The exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 184 (3) the Constitution is circumscribed by the existence of a question of public importance and enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Chapter I, Part H of the Constitution. It is, therefore, quite clear that two essential jurisdictional ingredients must be present in a case before it is taken up by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution. Firstly, the case must involve decision on an issue in which the public-at-large is interested and, secondly; the case also relates to the enforcement/violation of any of the fundamental rights mentioned in Chapter I, Part II of the Constitution, namely Articles 8 to 28. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the petition has contended that the Cabinet decision is violative of rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 4, 5, 18, 24, 25 and 27 of the Constitution. In so far Articles 4 and 5 are concerned they do not fall in Chapter I of Part H of the Constitution and therefore, we are of the view that the alleged violation of these Articles could not attract the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The next Article, which is pressed into service, is Article 18 of the Constitution, which reads as follows: "18. Subject to such qualifications, if any, as may be prescribed by law, every citizen shall have the right to enter upon any lawful profession or occupation, and to conduct any lawful trade or business: ' Provided that nothing in this Article shall prevent--
(a) the regulation of any trade or profession by a licensing system; or
(b) the regulation of trade, commerce or industry in the interest of free competition therein; or
(c) the carrying on, by the Federal Government or a Provincial Government, or by a corporation controlled by any such Government, of any trade, business, industry or service, to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons."
12. ' The Article reproduced above has guaranteed the freedom of trade, business or profession. The petitioner has not been able to show in what manner their freedom to follow a trade, business or profession has been abridged, curtailed or adversely affected as a result of the decision of the Federal Cabinet to reinstate in service the dismissed employees of the Corporation. The Cabinet decision reproduced earlier in this judgment, categorically stated that reinstatement of these dismissed employees will be made in individual cases subject to the Service Regulations of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to understand, how this decision is detrimental to the rights of the existing employees of the Corporation. We accordingly overrule the contention of the petitioner that the decision of the Federal Cabinet dated 22-11-1993 violated the alleged rights guaranteed to the employees of the Corporation under Article 18 of the Constitution.
13. ' The next Article, which according to the petitioners has been violated as a result of above decision of the Federal Cabinet, is Article 24 of the Constitution. This Article provides protection to the property rights of an individual. This Article provides that no person shall be compulsorily deprived of his property except in accordance with the law. It also prohibits compulsory acquisition of property or possession except for public purpose in accordance with the law after making compensation. This Article apparently has no application in the present case as no property right of the petitioner has been affected by the abovementioned decision of Federal Cabinet. The next Article of Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution pressed into service by the petitioner is Article 25.
14. Once again, the petitioners are, unable to establish that on account of reinstatement of 208 persons in service the terms and conditions of service of the existing employees of the Corporation have been violated or affected adversely in any way. We need not repeat here that the Cabinet decision dated 22-11-1993 made no such provision which gave preferential treatment to the reinstated employees over the employees already in the service of the Corporation. We, therefore, do not fund that the equality clause contained in Article 25 of the Constitution has been violated in any manner. The last Article of the Constitution relied by the petitioner in support of their petition is Article 27 of the Constitution, which is also not attracted. This Article applies only to the appointments in the service of Pakistan. Although in service matters the employees of the Corporation are deemed to be the persons in the Service of Pakistan but this status is limited only for the purpose of jurisdiction of Federal Service Tribunal, relating to service disputes. Apart from it the employees of the Corporation are not to be considered in the Service of Pakistan. We are, therefore, of the view that Article 27 of the Constitution is also not applicable in the present case.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioners very vehemently argued before us that since the question of enforcement of fundamental rights is involved the Court should lean towards liberal interpretations of the Articles contained in Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution. The proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not open to any cavil but the question is whether in reality any of the fundamental rights of the petitioners or the employees of the Corporation is affected adversely by the impugned decision of the Federal Cabinet. After having examined the question at length, we are of the view that petitioners are unable to establish that any of their fundamental right guaranteed under Chapter 1 of Part II of the Constitution has been violated by the decision of the Federal Cabinet dated 22-11-1993. Since no question for enforcement of any of the fundamental right guaranteed under Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution arises in the present petition, our jurisdiction under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution is not attracted. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable. However, in the circumstances of the case, we will make no order as to costs.