' Petitioners are employees of respondent No, 1, namely, Pakistan Television Corporation Limited (hereinafter described as Corporation). The substance of this Constitutional petition is that in violation of P.T.V. Employees Service Rules, respondent-Corporation has created a service structure which is detrimental to the rights of promotion of the petitioners. It is asserted that Administration and Personnel Department was originally one and the relevant rule provided for the channel of promotion. Later on, this department was bifurcated and a separate Personnel Section was created. However, at the level of Grade-VII, these two sections were merged and placed under one officer. It is further asserted that as compared to the petitioners who are in Administration Department, the members of the Personnel Section get rapid promotions and instances of the same have been narrated. According to the petitioners, this bifurcation coupled with other acts narrated in the petition, are contrary to the relevant service rules and as such liable to be declared as without lawful authority by this Court.
2. Report and parawise comments have been submitted by the respondents in which the principle objections are (i) that respondent-Corporation is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and as such not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court, inasmuch as, as a company it cannot be said to be performing any function in connection with the affairs of the Federation or of the Province, and (ii) the employment of the petitioners with respondent-Corporation is not governed by any statutory rules and what is described as P.T.V.
Employees Service Rules have not been framed under any statutory provision and these so-called rules are only instructions issued by the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation in accordance with Articles of Association of the Company. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder to the above comments in which this position is refuted and it is maintained that the employment of the petitioners being governed by the service rules, the petitioners can competently maintain this petition against the respondent-Corporation, which is performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation.
3. The petition does not seem to have been formally admitted, but since in the hearing held on 2-4- 1997, respondents were represented and have been fully heard, this petition is being finally disposed of as a Pacca matter.
4. Respondent No, 1 was originally incorporated as a Private Limited. Company under the Companies Act on 10-2-1966 under the name "Television Promoters Company Limited".
Subsequently, on 29-6-1967, the Company was converted into a Public Limited Company under the name "Pakistan Television Corporation Limited". It is an admitted position that majority of the shares of the Company are held by Government of Pakistan. Under its Articles of Association, business of the Company is managed by Directors who have been authorised to exercise all powers conferred by the Articles. Chapter XV (misdescribed as Chapter IX) is titled as "Power and Duties of Directors". Articles 89 and 90 are relevant. Under Article 90, the Directors have the power, subject to subsection (3) of section 196:-
(e) to engage, fix and pay the remuneration of and dismiss or discharge all managers, engineers, agents, secretaries, clerks, servants, workmen and other persons, employed, or to be employed in or in connection with the Company's Business.
5. It is also admitted position that the service of respondent-Corporation was declared as essential service in the year 1975 and consequently, the provisions of Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1962, were made applicable to the Corporation and this application continued to be extended at the end of every six months. In terms of Essential Services (Maintenance) Rules, 1962, National Industrial Relations Commission as specified authority issued directions regulating the employment with the Corporation. These directions came to be known as P.T.V. Employees Service Rules. After the Essential Services Act ceased to apply to the Corporation, the question of regulation of service was put up in the 85th meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation held on 1-7- 1990. The Board of Directors found that after 6-1-1990 service of P.T.V. Had ceased to be an essential service and as such the P.T.V. Employees Service Rules/directions of the N.I.R.C. Ceased to have any legal efficacy. The Board of Directors, therefore, acting under Article 90(e) ibid, decided to adopt the aforesaid rules with some changes and modifications. It is thus that the rules came to be described as Pakistan Television Corpotation Limited Employees Service Rules. In the same meeting some changes were approved in clauses 2.07 and 2.08 of the previous services rules and under the amendments the Corporation reserved to itself a right to modify or cancel or amend any or all of these rules or supplementary rules with or without such notice to the employees as may be considered necessary and appropriate by the Corporation. The Corporation further reserves to itself the right to interpret the meaning, import and applicability of these rules.
6. The case of the petitioners is based on these rules, the history of which has been traced above.
As noted in the earlier paragraph, the grievance of the petitioners is that the bifurcation made and creation of a new Personnel Section is violative of the service rules in particular, rule 2.11 and rule 6.08 and it is their further case that this has been done to promote favourtism and to deny better chances of promotion which the petitioners were enjoying under the previous set-up. The question whether these rules are statutory or otherwise is, therefore, extremely relevant and essential for disposal of this petition. If the answer be that the rules are not statutory, the petitioners will have no case as the service will, therefore, be held to be governed by the ordinary law of master and servant.
7. In support of the proposition that the service is statutory, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to and relied upon Ghulam Mustafa v. Ultaf Hussain Qtireshi, PTV Corporation (PLD 1979 Lahore 429) and Full Bench judgment reported as Muhammad Aslam Saleem, Advocate v. Pakistan Television Corporation and another PLD 1977 Lahore 852. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of learned Single Bench of this Court dated 16-1-1997 delivered in the case of Tasawwer Ahmad v. Pakistan Television Corporation etc. (Writ Petition No, 7125 of 1996). On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation has relied upon the order passed by me in Muhammad Siddique Malik v. Pakistan Television Corporation (Writ Petition No, 237 of 1995) and judgment dated 12-2-1997 delivered by another Single Bench in Writ Petition No,439 of 1996 wherein the view taken by me in Writ Petition No, 237 of 1995 has been agreed to.
8. The Full Bench judgment delivered in the case of Muhammad Aslam Saleem (supra), does not answer the question arising in this case.
' What it decides is that Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation constituted under Act XXXII of 1973, is a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution and as such was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The question whether the employment of the Corporation is statutory, was not the question arising for determination by the Full Bench. This Court has further held, in the same line, that Pakistan Television Corporation, although incorporated as a Limited Company under the Companies Act, 1913, is amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court for the reason that the Government has the controlling shares in it and it is the Government which determines its policy and issues guidelines and instructions for its management and running and it is the media policy of the Government which the Corporation is obliged to follow.
9. The other judgment that of Ghulam Mustafa (supra) is by a Single Bench of this Court and what it seems to hold is that mere fact that a person is not a civil servant and is not entitled to Constitutional guarantees would not always lead to the result that he is governed by ordinary law of master and servant. The judgment takes note of the P.T.V. Employees Service Rules, 1978, and holds that the rules do not deprive the employees of the right guaranteed under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968). The judgment in Tasawwer Ahmad's case (supra) by a learned Single Bench of this Court does hold that "the relationship between the Corporation and its employees is governed by certain rules and is not that of master and servant" and for this purpose reliance has been placed on Muhammad Aslam Saleem, Advocate's case (supra) (also reported in PLD 1977 Lahore 852) and Bilqis v. Kohinoor Industries Ltd., Lahore PLD 1979 Lahore 387).
9-A. There can be no dispute with the proposition that respondent-Corporation being wholly managed and controlled by the Government of Pakistan on account of the Federal Government having the majority share holding, is a person within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution and as such is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. However, even if the respondent- Corporation is subject to writ jurisdiction of this Court, in my humble view, it would be wrong to conclude that the employment of the petitioners with the Corporation is governed by statutory rules. This Court may have the jurisdiction over the respondent-Corporation, but the petitioners can get the relief only if it is shown that the petitioners have a statutory right which is being denied. In other words, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioners will not only have to prove the legal force of the rules but also that the same have been violated, inasmuch as, the allegation of violation have also been denied in the parawise comments filed on behalf of the Corporation.
The answer will have to be found from the principles of law declared by the Supreme Court in Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. PIAC and another (1994 SCMR 2232). In my humble view, the earlier view, if any relied upon in the judgment passed in Tassawar Ahmad's case (supra) stands overruled. It may also be noted that the Supreme Court's judgment in Mrs. Anisa Rehman's case (supra) was not cited before my learned brother in Tassawar Ahmad's case (supra).
9-B. In Mrs. Anisa Rehman's case (supra) the appellant in the Supreme Court (Mrs. Anisa Rehman) was appointed as Assistant Manager, Sales Department in Pay Group-VII. Vide letter dated 6-8- 1991, the management redesignated the appellant as Marketing Officer and placed her in Pay Group-VI. This so-called reversion was challenged in the Sindh High Court on the ground of absence of prior notice. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition holding that employment of Mrs. Anisa Rehman with PIAC was not governed by any statutory rules. The Court further concluded that the employment was governed by law of master and servant and in such a situation no prior notice was required to be issued before reducing the pay group. On appeal by Mrs. Anisa Rehman, the Supreme Court held that the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Rules, 1968, framed by the Central Government under section 29 of the PIAC Act, 1956, were not the rules made under section 31 of the Act of 1956. It was further held that in particular rule 22(e) of Rules of 1958 which empowers the Board of PIAC to appoint, remove or suspend any Manager, Secretary, Officers, Clerks, Agents or Servants and direct and control and fix their salaries and grades etc. Had nothing to do with the service matters as they relate to the working and powers of the Board of Directors of respondent-Corporation. In this connection the Court reiterated its earlier view reported as Riazuddin v. Chairman, PIAC (PLD 1992 SC 531). On the other question of course the Court held that the principle of audi alteram partem was applicable and Mrs. Anisa Rehman could not have been placed in the lower pay group without prior notice and hearing. It is clear that Mrs. Anisa Rehman's case stands on a higher level than that of the case of petitioners because petitioners' employer is a limited company while Mrs. Anisa Rehman's employer was a Statutory Corporation, created under the Act of 1956. Under the Act the Board was empowered to make appointments and exercise general power over the employees and for this purpose PIAC Rules of 1958 were framed. In such a background, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the rules were not statutory rules and employment of Mrs. Anisa Rehman with PIAC was not statutory. In the case in hand no statute at all is involved. Respondent-Corporation is a limited company and acting under its Article 90(e) had made certain provisions regulating the employment with the Company/Corporation. These provisions have been described as P.T.V. Employees Service Rules. I venture to say that the description is misleading because it does give the impression as if the rules have been framed in pursuance to some statutory provisions. Notwithstanding their description, the rules are not statutory. The contrary view taken by learned Single Bench in Ghulam Mustafa's case (supra) and in the case of Tasawwar Ahmad (supra), therefore, does not reflect the correct legal position and I say so with the profoundest of respects, as the view in these cases is not in accord with the principles of law laid down in Mrs. Anisa Rehman's case (supra).
10. On the above conclusion that P.T.V. Employees Service Rules are not statutory rules, their employment with respondent-Corporation will have to be held to be governed by ordinary principle of master and servant, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Mrs. Anisa Rehman's case (supra). On these premises the further assertion by the petitioners that respondent-Corporation is acting contrary to the aforementioned rules, need not be examined because even if this be correct, the rules being non-statutory, cannot be enforced through Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
This has again been so held in the case of Mrs. Anisa Rehman (supra).
11. For what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.