' This petition under section 115 of C.P.C. Seeks revision of an order passed by the Additional District Judge on 13-5-1992 whereby the appeal filed by respondent against the judgment and decree dated 26-3-1991 of the trial Court was accepted and the case was remanded to the trial Court for decision on other issues.
2. It is necessary to state facts in detail; suffice it to say that the respondent, who at the relevant time was working as Senior Head Cashier, feeling aggrieved of the order dated 17-4-1984 passed by the petitioner removing him from service, had filed a suit for declaration challenging the validity of the aforesaid order. This suit was resisted by the petitioner on various pleas, inter alia, that as the relationship between the parties was governed by the principle of master and servant, no civil suit challenging the order of termination could be filed. The learned Civil Judge framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the suit is incomplete in view of preliminary objection No,1? OPD.
(2) Whether the back benefits cannot be claimed under the laws? OPD.
(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable under the Specific Relief Act? OPD.
(4) Whether the Court has got no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD.
(5) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD.
(6) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of preliminary objection No,7? OPD.
(7) Whether the plaintiff estopped to file the instant suit? OPD,
(8) Whether the plaintiff has waived his right if any to bring the suit? OPD.
(9) Whether the impugned orders dated 17-4-1984 and 11-7-1985 are void, illegal and have no legal effect on the rights of the plaintiff? OPP.
(10) Relief.
3. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit observing that the respondent should have gone to the Labour Court against termination of his service. On appeal this finding was reversed by the Additional District Judge who was of the view that as the National Bank of Pakistan was a statutory corporation, its employees could seek their remedy by filing a civil suit.
4. Kh. Muhammad Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions; firstly that as the rules governing the services of employees of National Bank of Pakistan were not statutory in nature, a suit challenging an order of termination could not be filed and the only remedy of the aggrieved employee was to sue for damages; secondly in any event as the respondent was a workman within the meaning of section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 he could only invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and not of the Civil Court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the plea that respondent was a workman was not raised in the written statement nor any evidence was led in this behalf and, therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to raise any such objection before this Court. As regards the first contention, learned counsel has relied upon National Bank of Pakistan v. Manzoor ul Hassan (1989 SCM R 832) and National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Court No,5, Faisalabad and 2 others (1993 SCM R 672) to urge that the employees of National Bank of Pakistan are governed by statutory rules of service.
6. It is true as has been argued by the learned counsel for respondent that the Supreme Court of Pakistan as also this Court in various cases had held that where the employment of a person was not governed by the statutory rules of service, the principle of master and servant would become applicable and neither Constitutional petition nor suit challenging order of termination of services could be maintained as a master was within his rights to ask his servant to quit and the only remedy in the event of wrongful dismissal from service was held to be a suit foi damages. The position has, however, undergone a radical change in view of the pronouncement of Supreme Court of Pakistan in Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. F.IAC. And another (Civil Appeal No, 238-K/92) decided on 28-11-1993: 1991 SCMR 2232). In that case it has been held that if while passing an order detriment to the interest of the employee the principles of natural justice are violated, the employee can challenge that order by filing a Constitutional petition. The reason which prevailed with the Supreme Court of Pakistan for so holding was that the natural justice being part of every statute/statutory instrument, its violation would in law be violation of the statutory provision itself.
The earlier view about the maintainability of the suit/Constitutional petition which was noticed by the Supreme Court in Mrs. Anisa Rahman's case does not hold good and cannot be pressed into service.
7. In the present case, it was specifically asserted by the respondent that he was neither served with any notice by the petitioner to show cause nor was granted any opportunity of being heard and, therefore, the order of termination of his services was void. Unfortunately, this aspect of the case was not adverted to either by the trial Court or by the Additional District Judge who for other reasons remanded the case to the trial Court. In the circumstances of the case, it would be in the interest of justice that the judgment of the Additional District Judge is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for decision on all the issues including one of jurisdiction afresh.
' In view of what has been stated above, this petition stands disposed of in the terms that the trial Court shall proceed to decide all the issues arising in the case. As the dispute relates to a matter of service and order of termination of services of the respondent was passed as far back as 1984, it is directed that the trial Court shall proceed to finally decide the case by or before 23rd December, 1994, if necessary by holding day-to-day proceedings.
No order as to costs.