' The petitioner is an employee of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Islamabad, which is a statutory body.
2. It is alleged that the petitioner was removed from service on 9-3-1988, his grievance petition was accepted by the Punjab Labour Court No,IV, Faisalabad on 30-4-1992 and was reinstated in service, the appeal of the Bank against the petitioner was disposed of by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, on 1-3-1999 as having abated and now the petitioner has initiated proceedings against the officials of the Bank under section 38(5) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the implementation of the order of reinstatement and for initiation of contempt proceedings due to the non-compliance of the orders passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner alleges that the Bank of officials warned the petitioner, to forego his claim of back benefits and, therefore, disciplinary action has been initiated against him falsely in a mala fide manner by the respondent-bank through show-cause notice dated 27-7-1999 and charge-sheet dated 21-9-1999.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner falsely in a mala fide manner on trumped up charges just to force the petitioner to forego his claim of back benefits, the charge-sheet is illegal and without jurisdiction, the proceedings before the Enquriy Officer are coram non judice, the charge-sheet is barred by time as the same has not been issued within a reasonable time and the initiation of proceedings is discriminary because the employees directly concerned and involved in the alleged affair are not being prosecuted. In regard to the maintainability of the present Constitutional petition, learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has no other adequate remedy available to him because after the insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 the petitioner is a civil servant and thus the other forums like, Labour Court or N.I.R.C. Are not available to him but the petitioner cannot approach the Service Tribunal of Pakistan directly against the issuance of a show-cause notice and the issuance of charge-sheet because of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Yar Buttar and 4 others v. Board of Governors, Overseas Pakistanis Foundation, Islamabad and another 1999 PLC (C.S.) 409.
4. Learned Deputy Attorney-General has also been heard at this preliminary stage.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has become a civil servant because of insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 has no force. In Divisional Engineer Phones, Phones Division, 'Sukkur and another v. Muhammad Shahid and others 1999 PLC (C.S.) 1208, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a person who belongs to the category of persons who have been declared as civil servants under section 2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 for the purposes of availing the remedy before the Service Tribunal in the absence of corresponding amendment, in the Civil Servants, Act, 1973 cannot automatically become civil servant within the meanings of Civil Servants Act, 1973 and consequently it has been held that "it is, therefore, quite obvious that if a person was not civil servant within the meanings of Civil Servants Act, he could not avail of the remedy provided under the Service Tribunals Act." In the instant case, the petitioner being an employee of a statutory body also belongs to the category of persons who has been declared as civil servant under section 2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is thus, not a civil servant within the meanings of Civil Servants Act, 1973 due to the absence of a corresponding amendment in the Civil Servants Act, 1973. In view of the latest pronouncement of law by the apex Court in the above-cited judgment, learned Deputy Attorney-General has also argued that since the petitioner is not a civil servant, therefore, the doors of other forums like, Labour Court and N.I.R.C. Or the Civil. Court remain available to the petitioner and due to the availability of alternate efficacious remedies the present Constitutional petition is not maintainable.
6. In view of the abovementioned, it is held that due to the availability of alternate efficacious remedies, this petition is not maintainable and the petitioner may, if so advised, approach the appropriate forum for the redress of his grievances. Dismissed .