' MRS. KHALIDA RACHID, J.---This single judgment shall dispose of all the above-noted writ petitions as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2. The facts common to all the writ petitions are that the petitioners were employed by PIAC- respondent during the period from 14-11-1993 to 31-3-1994 and were posted on different positions in Groups Ito VII in the establishment of Corporation-respondent. They were initially appointed on contract basis but later on regularized into the service. During the month of March., 1997 the petitioners were served with the impugned notices regarding the termination of their services.
3. The main grievance of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that their termination of service, without prior notice of show cause and providing any opportunity of hearing, is not only alleged and a nullity in the eye of law but also against the principles of natural justice.
4. In the comments, filed by PIAC - respondents, they have taken a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petitions.
5. However, we have very patiently listened to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and carefully considered the submissions advanced )y them.
' The learned counsel for the petitioners have reiterated the same stance as agitated in the petitions. They maintained that the petitioners, being duly qualified and possessing the requisite qualification, were inducted into service by the Corporation - respondent, initially on contract basis after going through the formalities of interview, test of medical fitness etc. And were subsequently confirmed and absorbed in the regular service. The learned counsel insisted that the petitioners were appointed by the respondents in accordance with rules and regulations and worked to the full satisfaction of their superiors but without assigning any reason they were terminated from services which is against the maxim of "Audi alteram partem" and also grave violation of principles of natural justice and Islamic Injunctions. In this context the learned counsel referred to Anisa Rehman's case (1994 SCM R 2232) and Pakistan and others v. Public at Large (PLD 1987 SC 304).
' Mr. Nisar Ahmad Khan, advocating for the respondents, urged that the petitions are not maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution in view of the law laid down by the apex Court of the country declaring that the employees of P.I.A.C. Are neither civil servants nor their services Regulation framed by the Corporation have statutory authority. The learned counsel contended that the relationship between the petitioners (employees) and respondents (P.I.A.C.) is that of "master and servant" and on the principle that no servant can be imposed on an unwilling master and thus, the petitioners have no guaranteed rights under the Constitution And hence they were not required to be served with the show-cause notices. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of recent amendment in section 2 of Service Tribunals Act, an alternate forum in the shape of Service Tribunal is provided where the petitioners could resort to for the redress of their grievances.
6. It is a fact that no exception can be taken to the arguments of Mr. Nisar Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for P.I.A.C. - respondents that services of the petitioners not governed by statutory rules as the same (P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulation, 1985) were framed by the Central Government under section 29 of P.I.A.C. Act, 1956, which do not have the authority and force of statutory character as they were not framed in terms of section 31 of the Act which required that "all the rules and regulation 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". However, this argument would not benefit the respondents under the present circumstances. The main question in issue before us is whether the services of employees, no matter employed in Government, statutory corporation or non-statutory authority can be dispensed with without affording them opportunity of being heard. It is a principle of natural justice that every employee whether of statutory or non-statutory organization has the right to be intimated the reasons and grounds for any penal action taken against him and cannot be deprived of his right of being heard. The Humble Judges of the apex Court, in Anisa Rehman's case (1994 SCM R 2232) have held as follows:- "-Art. 199---Maxim: 'Audi alter am partem'---Employee of statutory Corporation---Reversion--- Absence of statutory rules--Remedy---Corporation while taking action against its employee neither issuing show-cause notice to him nor giving him opportunity of hearing---Corporation having violated principles of natural justice, its action in reverting employee was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect-Corporation, however, could have option to take fresh action against employee after hearing him in accordance with law."
' The similar view has been expressed by the Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court in Pakistan and others v. Public at Large (PLD 1987 SC 304). It has been observed by Humble Bench that condemning someone without being heard is violate of Islamic Injunctions.
7. The unilateral termination of the petitioners who were permanently absorbed into the service without having a prior adequate notice of the cause of termination is not only against essential requirements of universally accepted maxim, "audit alter am partum" but also violate of principle of natural justice and Islamic Injunctions. Rule of giving opportunity of hearing to the affected person is based on 'Quran' and Sunnah'. The prospective affected must have a reasonable opportunity of fair hearing against the allegations consequence of which extreme decision is to be made.
' For the reasons given above, the writ petitions are hereby accepted and the impugned orders are declared as null and void for being violate of principle of natural justice. This order shall not debar the authority from taking any action in future, in accordance with law. The parties to bear their own costs.