1. ' ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH, J.---The petitioner is an employee of Rohri Cement Factory which is a Corporate body. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been dismissed from the service illegally and unlawfully and, therefore, he has prayed for the following relief:--
(A) To declare the acts of the respondents by passing the impugned order dated 20-2-1997 dismissing the petitioner from his services, is harsh, unjust, mala fide, colorable, without lawful authority, ultra vires, unilateral and without any due course of law.
(B) To issue the mandatory injunction restraining the respondents not to interfere in the employment of the petitioner, till the disposal of the petition or he may be ousted from other facilities like Quarter, Medical, facilities and other utility facilities as provided by the concerned with due course of law.
(C) To award costs of the petition.
(D) To grant any other consequential relief which may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the circumstances of the case.
2. ' The pre-admission notices were issued to respondents Nos. 1 to 4 who have filed their comments.
3. The comments to para. No, 12 of the petition read as under:-- "That the para. No, 10 of the petition is absolutely wrong hence it is denied in to. In fact the petitioner was provided full opportunity of being heard and first show-cause notice was served upon him and subsequently second show-cause notice dated 28-7-1996 was also given to the petitioner who have an evasive reply. Apart from that he was also given opportunity twice to appear before the General Manager in person to defend the charges framed against him by the Enquiry Committee but he himself avoided to avail the opportunity. The letters for personal hearings are already submitted as Annexures E-4 and E-5."
4. ' And to para. No, 12 of the petition the comments read as under:-- "14. As regard para. No, 12 it is submitted that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy as available to him under Labor Laws. As the petitioner has not approached the Competent Court of Law instead of invoking the ordinary jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. On the basis of above facts the petition is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost."
5. ' Mr. Abdul Qadir Abro appearing for the petitioner was asked as to how his petition is maintainable as an employee of a Corporation is to be deemed as civil servant and as such he can agitate his grievance before the Service Tribunal and if the petitioner is laborer, he has to seek the remedy from the Labor Court, learned counsel has not been able to satisfy this Court as regards the maintainability of the petition.
6. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able even to satisfy as to whether the petitioner is a civil servant or a worker to be governed under the Labor Laws. It is settled proposition of law that where the jurisdiction of the labor Court or the Service Tribunal extends, the jurisdiction of this Court is not available in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. This has been the consistent view of this Court.
7. ' Moreover, the petitioner was involved in misappropriation of Company's funds amounting to Rs,14,66,182 and such case was registered as Crime No, 5/96 at Police Station, F.I.A., Sukkur and on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Committee, the services of the petitioner were dismissed and he was relieved on 20-2-1997.
8. The point remains as to whether the petitioner can challenge his dismissal before this Court in writ petition or before some other forum. The B petitioner if deemed as laborer then he has to seek remedy from labor Court and if he claims to be a civil servant, the remedy lies with Service Tribunal.
9. ' Since our jurisdiction is ousted, we are constrained to hold that this Constitution petition is not maintainable. We have dismissed the same in limine by short order dated 10-3-1998 and these are the reasons thereof.