' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.----The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 30- 6-2000 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore passed in Appeal No,335(L) of 1998 whereby the respondent was reinstated in service._
2. The facts leading to the filing of Civil Petition No,1776-L of 2000 are that respondent Muhammad Bashir was appointed as Security Guard in WAPDA and his services were transferred to Kot Addu Power Company Limited by the petitioner No,1 when Kot Addu Gas Turbine Power Station was privatized and its 26% shares were sold out to the Company and the management was also transferred to it. The petitioner regularised the services of respondent vide order, dated 10-5-1997.
According to the petitioner the respondent committed an act of misconduct by refusing lawful orders of his superior and did not perform duty on 29-7-1997 from 9-00 p.m. To 7-00 a.m. Despite clear directions of his Incharge, and in spite of a clear previous undertaking given by him on 14-3- 1997. Consequently he was issued an explanation letter dated 11-8-1997 containing the allegations but the same were denied by him vide his reply dated 18-8-1997. An inquiry was held in September, 1997 in which he was found guilty of the allegations. He, however, was provided a further chance and charge-sheet dated 4-10-1997 was issued and he submitted his reply on 12-10-1997 which was also found unsatisfactory. He was also afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and, however, he was dismissed from service on 4-12-1997. Thereafter, respondent preferred departmental appeal which too was rejected on 10-2-1998 and thereafter he preferred Appeal No,335-L of 1998 before the Federal Service Tribunal which was allowed and he was reinstated into service without back benefits and two increments were also withheld for a period of two years.
3. Mr. Khalid Farooq, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner contended that respondent after privatisation of Kot Addu Gas Turbine Power Station ceased to be a civil servant for the purpose of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 after insertion of section 2-A being an employee of private limited company under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. According to him the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 would be applicable to the respondent and the Labour Court was the only forum where he could have agitated his right and the Federal Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter. He next contended that since no detailed inquiry was held in the case of respondent, as such, the matter may be remanded back to the competent authority to hold a proper inquiry.
4. We are of the considered opinion that the Federal Service Tribunal was competent enough to have the jurisdiction in the matter of respondent for the following reasons:-- ' Admittedly the petitioners' company was privatized and only 26% shares were sold to them whereas remaining 74% remained with WAPDA thus, it had the dominating shares and control over the petitioner. For proper appraisal it would be appropriate to reproduce section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 at this place: "2-A. Service under certain corporations etc. To be service of Pakistan.--Service under any authority, corporation, body or organization 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 organization shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purpose of this Act."
5. In order to fortify above, the reference is also made to sections 3, 8(2)ii and (5)(a) of the Pakistan WAPDA Act, 1958-- "3. Constitution of the Authority.--(1) There shall be established an Authority to be known as the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority for carrying out the purposes of this Act.
(2) The authority shall be a body corporate, shall be entitled to acquire, hold and dispose of property, shall have perpetual succession and a common seal and shall by the said name sue and be sued.
(3) The Federal Government may, from time to time, issue such directives as it may consider necessary on matters of policy and the Authority shall comply with such directives: and if a question arises whether any directive relates to a matter of policy, the decision of the Federal Government shall be final."
"8(2). The Authority may frame a scheme or schemes for a Province or any part thereof providing for all or any of the following matters, namely :--
(ii) the generation, transmission and distribution of power; and the construction, maintenance and operation of power houses and grids; "(5) Where a scheme is sanctioned by the Government under subsection (4), the Authority may---
(a) undertake any joint venture or work in association with the Provincial Government, and agency, corporation, company, authority or any person and may subscribe to the equities and acquire such other rights and obligations as may be necessary for such joint venture of association."
(b)
(c)
(d)
6. From the perusal of the above provisions of law, dominating shares being with WAPDA and the Federal Government, the respondent has been rightly held to be a civil servant for the purpose of Federal Service Tribunals Act and his case rightly falls within section 2-A of the Act, as such, there seems to be no illegality in the impugned judgment which is accordingly maintained.
7. The submissions that no proper inquiry was conducted against respondent and, therefore, matter be sent back for afresh inquiry, would be of no avail to the petitioner as they were the competent authority to conduct a detailed inquiry and by not doing so the respondent is benefited.
' From what has been discussed above, we do not find any merits in the petition which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.