' MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.--This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petition No,7655 of 2000, Writ Petition No,9286 of 2000, Writ Petition No,6962 of 2000 and Writ Petition No,11701 of 2000 as the controversy involved in these petitions is the same.
2. The petitioners in all the four petitions were officers working in the employment of the Bank of Punjab which is a corporation set up by the Bank of Punjab Act, 1989. Their services have been terminated through different orders passed by the Chairman Bank of Punjab which have been challenged by filing these Constitutional petitions.
3. Various grounds have been urged in support of these petitions including that of mala fide, failure to abide by the principles of natural justice and law. Mr. Ali Sibtain Fazli who appeared for the respondents in all these four cases has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of these petitions inter alia on the ground that the service under the Bank of Punjab was not governed by any statutory rules and therefore, no Constitutional petition can be maintained. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioners apart from arguing that there were statutory rules framed by the Bank have also heavily relied upon the case of Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. Pakistan International Airline Corporation and another (1994 SCMR 2232).-
4. The moot question which falls for determination in these cases is as to whether service rules framed by the respondent Bank can be said to be statutory in a nature. In order to resolve this controversy it may be stated that section 25 of the Bank of Punjab Act, 1989 confers powers upon Board' of Directors of Bank of Punjab with the approval of Provincial Government for making bye- laws for giving effect to the provisions of the Act. In exercise of that power the Bank has framed the bye-laws with the approval of the Provincial. Government. However, terms and conditions of the employees of the. Bank were not set out in the bye-laws but by bye-law 25 power was given to the Board of Directors to frame rules regarding recruitment and terms and conditions of employement of Officers in consultation with the Government of Punjab. Subsequent thereto bye-laws for recruitment and terms and conditions of service of employees and officers 'of the Bank were framed in consultation with the Finance Department of the Government of Punjab. However, these service bye-laws did not receive formal approval of Government of Punjab. It is in these circumstances that the question noted above has arisen.
5. It is by now 'a settled proposition of law that in service matters unless a particular service or employment is governed by statutory rules no constitutional petition can be maintained to reinstate a servant who is allegedly wrongfully dismissed or removed from service. This proposition is too well-known to need any authority but reference may be made to A. George v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PLD 1971 Lahore 748), Muhammad Yusuf Shah v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PLD 1981 SC 224), The- Principal, Cadet College, Kohat and another v. Muhammad Shoab Qureshi (PLD 1984 SC 170), Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others (PLD 1984 SC 194), Shahid Khalil v. PIAC (1971 SCMR .568), Raziuddin v. Chairman PIAC (PLC 1992 SC 531), KDA and another v. Wall Ahmad Khan and others (1991 SCMR 2434), ADBP and 2 others v. Muhammad Sharif (1998 SCMR 597).
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, relied upon the case of Anisa Rehman (Supra) to contend that even where there are no statutory rules if a particular action is taken in the matter relating to service of the employees by the employer which is in violation of principle of natural justice a Constitutional petition can be maintained. This case is, however, distinguishable inasmuch as the dispute in that case related to demotion of an employee and not dismissal or removal. In a latter judgment reported as Muhammad Umar Malik v. Muslim Commercial Bank (1995 SCMR 453) the Supreme Court of Pakistan again reiterated that where there were no statutory, rules governing the terms and conditions of service the relationship . Would be governed by the principle of master and servant. The case of Anisa Rehman (supra) was considered by the Supreme Court itself in Habib Bank Limited v. Zia-ul-Hassan Kazmi (1998 SCMR 60) incidentally a judgment authored by the same learned Judge and it was observed as under:- "6. On the other hand, Syed Jamshaid Ali, learned Advocate Supreme Court, has referred to the case of Msr. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. And another (1994 SCMR 2232). In which this. Court has inter alia held that though in. P.I.A.C. There are no statutory rules but since the petitioner was demoted to lower grade without issuing a show-cause notice and without hearing her, the same was violative of the maxim audi alteram partem and because of that the order was vitiated. However, at the same time it was observed in the above report that 'The effect of the application of the master and servant rule is that an employee of a corporation in the absence of violation of law or any statutory rule cannot press into service Constitutional jurisdiction or civil jurisdiction for seeking relief of reinstatement in service, his remedy for wrongful dismissal is to claim damages.' In other words, the well-settled proportion of law that, in the case of an employee of a corporation the relationship is that of master and servant as enunciated, inter alia, in the following cases was deviated:"
7. The ratio of the judgment in the case of Mrs. Anisa Rehman (supra) is that a corporation cannot demote its employee to a lower grade without hearing him/her before passing demotion order. It has not dealt with the question of termination of services or suspension order."
' It is, thus, clear that the constant law which has prevailed with the Courts in Pakistan is that unless there are statutory rules of service the order of C removal from service cannot be challenged.
7. Next question which therefore, arises is as to whether bye-laws framed to govern the recruitment and terms and conditions of service of employees of Bank of Punjab can be equated with or have the force of statutory rules of service. The first thing to be noted in this behalf is that these bye-laws have been framed by the Board of Directors. But do not have the approval of the Provincial Government. The distinction between these service bye-laws and the bye-laws framed under section 25 of the Bank of Punjab Act, 1989 Must be kept in mind. While the general bye-laws were framed with the approval of the Government of Punjab this approval -is lacking in the case of service bye-laws. The service bye-laws are to be distinguished from the statutory bye-laws in two important respects firstly while bye-laws have been framed under section 25 of the Bank of Punjab Act the service bye-laws have been made in exercise of the. Powers conferred by bye-law No,25 of the bye-laws and secondly while the bye-laws have the approval of the Provincial Government the approval of Provincial Government is lacking in the case of service bye-laws. It, therefore, necessarily follows that bye-laws of service does not have the force of statutory. Rules or regulations as in order to achieve that character according to section 105 of the Act itself the approval of the Provincial Government was necessary which is missing in the present case.
Somewhat similar situation arose in the case of A. George v. P.I.A.C. (PLD 1971 Lahore 748) where although the Board of Directors of P.I.A.C. Had the power to lay down the terms and conditions of service of the employees but the rules framed in that behalf need prior approval of the Federal Government it was held that in the absence of any prior approval the rules cannot be said to be statutory in 'nature. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Yousaf v. P.I.A. (PLD 1981 SC 224). The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in The Principal, Cadet College, Kohat and another v. Muhammad Shoab Qureshi (PLD 1984 SC 170), Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others (PLD .1984 SC 194). The inevitable conclusion which follows from the above discussion is that service bye-laws do not have the status of statutory rules or bye-laws of service.
' In view of what has been stated above, these Constitutional petitions are not maintainable and are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.