1. ' MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against a judgment dated 8-9-1994 by a learned Division Bench of the High Court. Of Sindh in Constitution Petition No,D-1365 of 1990, filed by respondent No, l Mst. Sherin Dokhth, challenging an order dated 22-4-1991 about her retirement from service of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation.
2. Admittedly respondent No, 1 was appointed as Flight Stewardess by Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (hereinafter mentioned as PIAC) under an order dated 22-5-1967 (copy Annex. A). She was confirmed as Air-Hostess under a letter dated 13-11-1967 (copy Annex. B). Under a letter dated 15-11-1972 (copy Annex. C) respondent No,1 was informed that contract period of her service with PIAC would expire on 1-11-1972 when her services with PIAC would stand terminated. In the same letter respondent No,1 was given offer to "join PIAC, which was considering her re-employment on a permanent basis on the conditions, inter alia, that her retirement will take place on her attaining age of 35 years. Respondent No,1 was required to indicate her consent in writing, in response to such offer. Under a letter dated 18-10-1979' (copy Annex. D) respondent No,1 was promoted from Pay Group V to pay Group VI as Senior Purser with effect from 15-10-1979. After promotion, respondent No,1 was to remain on probation for six months. Under a letter dated 2-6-1981 respondent No,1 was informed by PIAC that her services had been confirmed as Senior Purser with effect from 15-10-1979. It was after all this, that respondent No, 1 was issued letter dated 16-1-1992 by PIAC that she stood retired from service of PIAC with effect from 30-5-1992 on attaining the age of superannuation. Respondent No,1 was advised, under the same letter, to proceed on leave preparatory to retirement for 107 days which period was to expire with last day of her service. In said letter there is a reference to Administration Order No,20/91 dated 22-4-1991 by which it was laid down that retirement age of Female Cabin Crew was revised from 35 years to 45 years, subject to the condition that accretion in retirement age will be determined by the competent Board to be constituted under Adnm. Order 13/83 dated 22-5-1993 office order dated 11-4-1988. In her Constitution petition in the High Court of Sindh, respondent No,1 .Challenged the vires of Regulation No,25 of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulation, 1985 on the ground that it was volatile of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Said Constitution petition was accepted under the impugned order, where the view taken was that action of PIAC in forcibly retiring respondent No, 1 at the age of 45 years on the sole ground of her bein female purser, was in clear violation of Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution. It was also observed in the impugned judgment that the change pertaining to the terms and conditions of service of the respondent No,1 to her disadvantage cannot be done in an arbitrary manner and that this was a clear case of discrimination on the basis of sex and sex alone, in view of the Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution as well as the law laid down by this Court.
3. ' Mr. Ghulam Basit, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that service between respondent No, 1 and PIAC was governed by the law of master and servant and it was not statutory and, as such, the Constitution petition was not maintainable. In support the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the cases of Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. And another (1994 SCM R 2232) and Raziuddin v.
4. Chairman, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and others (PLD 1992 SC 531).
5. ' Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, learned counsel appearing for respondent No,1 referred to Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan but frankly conceded that he would not stand in way of grant of leave to appeal. Learned counsel for respondent No, 1, however, wanted that the petitioners be called upon to deposit in Court sufficient amount as security which can be paid to respondent No,1 on dismissal of petitioners' appeal. He also wanted the petitioners to take on duty respondent No,1 in pursuance of the impugned judgment by the High Court of Sindh.
6. ' In the case of Raziuddin (PLD 1992 SC 531) it was observed As below:-- "The legal position obtaining in Pakistan as to the status of employees of the Corporations seems to be that ate relationship between a Corporation and its employees is that of Master and Servant and that in case of wrongful dismissal of an employee of the Corporation, the remedy, is to claim damages and not the remedy of reinstatement. However, this rule is subject to a qualification, namely, if the relationship between a Corporation and its employees is regulated by statutory provisions and if there is any breach of such provisions, an employee of such a Corporation may maintain an action for reinstatement."
7. ' In the case of Mrs. Anisa Rehman (1994 SCM R 2232) it was observed as below: "It may be stated that it is true that this Court has consistently held that in the absence of any statutory service rules the relationship between the PIAC and its employees was that of Master and Servant."
8. ' It was also held in said case that: "If there is violation of any statutory rule or law, a Constitutional petition is competent against a Corporation/Cooperative Body etc."
9. ' In respect of nature of service of P.I.A.C. Employees the observation made in the case of Raziuddin reads as below: "In the present case, the P.I.A.C. Has the Regulations which have been framed by the Board of Directors of the P.I.A.C., pursuant to the power contained in section 30 of the Act. However, there is nothing on record to indicate that the above regulations have been framed with the previous sanction of the Central Government or that they were gazetted and laid before the National Assembly in terms of section 31 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the Regulations cannot be treated as statutory rules of the nature which would bring the case of the P.I.A.C. Within the above qualification as to entitle the employees of the P.I.A.0 to claim relief of reinstatement on the ground of breach of the statutory provisions."
10. ' In the case of Mrs. Anisa Rehman this Court took the following view: "Adverting to the above first contention of Mr. Shahani that respondent No,1 has statutory rules, it may be. Observed that in furtherance of his above submission he has referred to PIAC Rules, 1958 framed by the Central Government under section 29 of the P.I.A.C. Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He has particularly referred to rule 22(e), which empowers the Board of respondent No,1 to appoint, remove or suspend any Manager, Secretary, Officers, Clerks Agenst or servants and direct and control and fix their salary and grades etc. In our view, above rules have nothing to do with the service matters as they relate to the working and powers of the Board of Directors of respondent No,1 Corporation. It may be pointed out that it has been consistently held by this Court that respondent No, 1 does not have any statutory service rules in terms of section 31 of the Act, which provides that ' all rules and regulations made under this Act shall be published in the official Gazette, and shall come into force upon such publication and shall' be laid' thereafter as soon as may be before the National Assembly."
11. In view of the case-law on the point, we grant leave to appeal to consider whether employees of the P.I.A.C. Are governed by statutory, Jules of service and, if so, whether the impugned Regulation was discriminatory and militated against any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It may be clarified that this Court has not ordered suspension of operation of the impugned judgment.