This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 109/96, 110/96, 111/96, 112/96, 200/96, 211/96, 214/96 and 256/96.
2. In these Constitutional petitions four of the petitioners claim to be due for promotion as Assistant Vice-President, three as Vice-Presidents and one as Senior Vice-President. It is urged that they have been denied their promotions in breach of the Promotion Policy for Officers and Executives of Nationalised Commercial Banks as advised by Pakistan Banking Council, a photocopy of which appears at page 19 of Writ Petition No. 109 of 1996.
3. Parawise comments were called for and have been filed. Respondent --Bank is duly represented and the learned counsel for both the sides have been heard in depth. Although the cases have not been formally admitted, but since both the sides have been heard in depth, these are being disposed of as pacca cases.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to show that the employment of the petitioners with the respondent-Bank was governed by provisions of any Statute or by any rule or policy having the force of a Statute. In reply, the learned counsel has referred to the provisions of section 9 of the Banks (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 which empowers the Pakistan Banking Council, itself a Body created by the Banks (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, to issue advisory instructions. Learned counsel has claimed that in view of the provisions contained in sections 9, 11 and 13 of the Banks (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, the promotion policy assumed statutory force and any violation of the same will invite the corrective process of this Court as enshrined in Article 199 of the Constitution.
For this proposition he has relied on Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. And others (1994 SCM R 2232). On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the Pakistan Banking Council at best can only issue an advice which may or may not be followed by the Board of Directors of the given Bank and in the absence of any provision in the Statute providing for c6nsequence of non-compliance, it cannot be said that the advice is mandatory. For this proposition, he has referred to section 9(4)(xiv) read with section 9(4-A). To substantiate his submission that the employment in all these cases is by the general law of master and servant, he has cited Muhammad Umar Malik v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. And others (1995 SCM R 453), and an unreported judgment of this Bench dated 17-3-1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 3878/96 at Principal Seat.
5. A survey of the relevant sections of Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974. Reveals that t e Pakistan Banking Council can issue only advisory instructions on various matters mentioned in section 9(4)
(xiv). Under subsection (4-A) thereof. The advice is to be placed before the Board of Directors or Executive Committee of the Bank ,40r consideration. However, even if these instructions be said to be mandatory and binding, it will not transform the petitioner's employment with the Banks, which are limited companies into a statutory employment. The judgment f Mrs. Anisa Rehman (supra) itself negates the contention being raised by he learned counsel. In this case the rules framed by the Federal Government under section 29 of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956, namely, PIAC Rules, 1958, concerning employment of staff etc. Were held to be not statutory service rules in terms of section 131 of the Act. Even in earlier case, namely, Raziuddin v. Chairman, PIAC (PLD 1992 SC 531), the Supreme Court held the employment with PIAC to be governed by the law of master and servant. This aspect of the case was also examined by me in the cited unreported judgment, a photocopy of which has been placed on record and in almost similar circumstances it was held that the petitioner in that case who was an officer of Habib Bank limited, cannot maintain a Constitutional petition seeking enforcement of the promotion policy. Learned counsel has stated that to the best of his information this judgment has attained finality as the same has not been challenged further. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show as to why different view be taken in these cases although the petitioners are identically placed.
6. For the reasons noted above, all these petitions are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.