SYED MANZOOR HUSSAIN GILANl, J.~ The above-referred petitions under Sec. 44 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974, call into question the retrenchment scheme issued by the United Bank Limited on Oct., 9, 1997 through circular No. PS/AG/KS/97, under the signatures of senior executive Vice-President and executive Vide President from Karachi addressed to all the United Bank Officers and executive officers. Under the policy, the bank has taken the decision under rule 15(1) of the United Bank Limited (Staff Service) Rules, 1981, to retrench from service of the bank all officer/executives (except the employees in the computer department) who came into their present grade on or before Oct., 1, 1991. The policy also lays down the scheme to be followed for benefits of retrenched officers, which is not required to be reproduced, as the case is not being decided on merits.
2. In consequence of the above-referred retrenchment scheme, letters of retrenchment are issued and served upon the above-referred petitioners, terminating their services, subject to benefits given under the scheme. The petitioners, as stated above, have called into question the retrenchment scheme as well as the order of termination of their services under the above scheme which are even dated i.e. Oct. 11, 1997.
3. The learned advocates were directed to first argue the case on the point of jurisdiction of the Court, as the question was left open to be decided at the time of final arguments of the case when the petition captioned "Muhammad Hafiz Shakir and others" was admitted for regular hearing. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the point of jurisdiction at length.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are the state subject and have been appointed against the quota of Azad Kashmir in the service of United Bank Limited. According to the learned advocates the petitioners have been appointed to perform functions in different capacities in the United Bank Limited within the territorial limits of Azad Kashmir. According to them, the retrenchment policy and the order of termination of the service of the petitioners has affected the petitioners in Azad Kashmir, thus the Court in Azad Kashmir has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and quash the retrenchment scheme as well as the termination orders of the petitioners' services. The learned advocates referring to sec. 44 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974, contended that as the United Bank is performing functions in Azad Kashmir in connection with the affairs of Azad Kashmir, the Court I I Azad Kashmir has the jurisdiction over the (unctions of the bank.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents controverting the arguments contended that the petitioners are no doubt state subjects and employed in the service of United Bank Limited, who are posted to perform functions in different capacities in the service of bank in Azad Kashmir. The learned counsel, however, contended that as the bank has been established under the charte-Iaw enacted by the Federal Parliament and the rules framed by the Federal Government/authorities of the bank at the federal level. The appointments, terms and conditions and other service matters of the petitioners are regulated by those rules and laws, with respect to which, neither can Azad Kashmir Government nor Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council, pass any order or perform any other function, having any connection with the appointment or terms and conditions of service of the United Bank employees. The learned counsel further contended that the banking business is extended to Azad Kashmir in co-ordination with the Azad Kashmir Council, which is restricted to the extent of extension of business in Azad Kashmir and co-ordination of banking business with the Government of Pakistan. The learned counsel also contended that the matters of terms and conditions of service of the petitioners are governed by Sec. 2(a) of the Federal Service Tribunal Act, 1973 enacted by the Parliament of Pakistan in exercise of its powers under Art. 212 of the Constitution. According to them, proper remedy for the petitioners to be followed in the matter of their retrenchment/termination of service is to file appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal under Sec. 4 of the Federal Service Tribunal Act, 1973. 4
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the retrenchment scheme, retirement orders of the petitioners and the provisions of law in this behalf. Establishment and functions of the banks in Azad Kashmir falls in the AJ&K Council legislative list, Item No. 14 of the list relevant for the purpose is reproduced as follows:-
14. Banking, that is to say, the co-ordination with the Government of Pakistan of the conduct of banking business.
7. The above-referred provision of law authorises the Council to pass legislation for co-ordination with the government of Pakistan for the conduct of banking business in Azad Kashmir. It clearly restricts the power of the Council to the extent of co-ordination with the Government of Pakistan, without conferring any power on it to make appointments, rules or provide for the terms and conditions of the employees of the bank, which are established and performing functions in Azad Kashmir. All these matters are governed by the relevant statutes/charters under which the banks are established in Pakistan, whose functions are extended to Azad Kashmir with the co-ordination of Council. The employees of the bank are governed by the relevant rules and instructions which are applicable to their counter parts posted anywhere in any other Province of Pakistan. The position and status of all the employees of the United Bank, employed/posted in any capacity, anywhere in Azad Kashmir, is similar as of their counter-parts appointed/posted in other province of Pakistan. All the employees of the Bank are governed and regulated by the statues in the uniform manner throughout the country including Azad Kashmir. An employee retrenched/retired/terminated from service employed in Azad Kashmir has the similar remedy/right as available to his counter part in other provinces of Pakistan. Sec. 2(a) of the Federal Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act; 1997, which caters the situation in hand is reproduced as follows:- "2(a). Service under certain corporations, etc. To be service of Pakistan. Service under any authority, corporation, body or organisation established by or under a federal law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share or interest is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under such authority, corporation, body or organisation shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purpose of this Act",
8. All the employees of the bank or in the service of any authority/corporation established under the federal law, hence fall in the service of Pakistan on account of which they are civil servants for the purpose of Service Tribunal Act, 1973. Under sec. 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 (enacted by the Parliament of Pakistan), the remedy provided to a civil servant against an order of which he feels aggrieved is to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal established under sec. 3 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973. Proper, alternate and statutory remedy being available under the above-referred provisions of law to the petitioners, the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in Azad Kashmir is excluded under sec. 44 and sec. 47 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974, as it stands so excluded under Art. 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
9. The argument of the learned advocates for the petitioners that as the petitioners are performing functions in Azad Kashmir and the order/retrenchment scheme impugned before the Court effects them in Azad Kashmir, thus the orders shall be deemed to affect the affairs of Azad Kashmir, is fallacious for the reason that retrenchment scheme relates to the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioners not to, the affairs of Azad Kashmir. The individual grievance arising under the statutes under which the petitioners are appointed does not affect the affairs of Azad Kashmir, moreso, when the remedy is also provided under the rules and law under which the petitioners are appointed. The other argument of the leamed counsel for the petitioners that the council having adopted the Service Tribunal Act, 1973, has not enacted the provisions of sec. 2(a) of the Service Tribunal Act, hence the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal, is also equally devoid of force for the reason that the petitioners are not employees of the AJ&K Council, but of the bank established by the Government of Pakistan. Irrespective of the fact whether the provision of Sec. 2(a) of the Service Tribunal Act are enacted or adopted by AJ&K Council or not, the remedy open to the petitioners is before the Federal Service Tribunal tor their being in the service of Pakistan. The powers of the Council to enact the law regulating the service and terms and conditions of service of an employee relate only to the persons appointed by AJ&K Council through any of its department anywhere in Azad Kashmir or Pakistan.
10. The argument of the learned counsel tor the petitioners that the remedy at this stage before the Federal Service Tribunal may not be afforded to the petitioners for being belated, as the retrenchment policy has been issued in 1997, cannot be attended by this Court. It is for the competent Tribunal to consider the argument for condonation of delay for pursing the remedy before the wrong forum.
11. In view of above-stated reasons, all the petitions are dismissed without any order as to costs.