1. CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner was employee of the Chanab Club, Faisalabad. The services of the petitioner was suspended in 1995 by the Secretary of the club. The petitioner was subsequently reinstated. The petitioner was under apprehension that some members of the club were bent upon to terminate the services of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved find suit for permanent injunction with the prayer that the respondents be restrained for his illegal eviction from the quarter allotted to him and was constructed with additional seven rooms by the petitioner with a cost of Rs.5,00,000/- and also for the illegal termination of the service of the petitioner as well demolishing any part of the quarter occupies by the petitioner before the Senior Civil judge, Faisalabad. The Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad passed the restraining order on 7.8.1995. The respondents terminated the services of the petitioner and demolished the quarter occupied by the petitioner, during the pendency of the aforesaid restraining order. The petitioner being aggrieved find a Crl. Org. No. 39- C/1 996 before the High Court. The content proceedings were initiated against the respondents.
2. During the pendency of the criminal original the petitioner was asked by the respondent to place an application for reinstatement and also for the compensation pertaining to the demolishing of the quarter as well household. The petitioner had withdrawn the criminal original. The petitioner submitted an application to the respondent for the re-instatement and also with the prayer to award compensation to the petitioner. The respondents constituted an inquiry committee. The inquiry committee decided that Rs. 1 lac to 1.5 lac be granted as financial assistance for long services rendered by the petitioner and permanently be given the Club Membership. The committee further recommended that the case of compensation of demolition of Club Quarter be dealt independently and separately. The petitioner submitted various applications to the respondents but the respondents failed to take any action. The petitioner being aggrieved find this writ petition. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that respondents are duty bound to redress the grievances of the petitioner.
3. 2, I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record myself.
3. It is admitted fact that petitioner was an employee of the club. The club does not fall within the definition of a person as contemplated in Article 199(1) of the Constitution, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable, In this respect I am fortified by Muhammad Ibrahim Siddiqui' v. That Industries Corporation (PLD 1974 SC 198), Abdul Rashid Qureshi v. The Industrial Court of Pakistan, Lahore (PLD 1967 SC 367) and Syeda Sayeeda Banoo v. Province of East Pakistan (PLD 1969 Dacca 352). The petitioner has alternative remedy to file a suit before the Competent Court for redressal of his grievances, In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is not maintainable.
4. The same is dismissed.