' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.-Facts briefly stated, in the background, are that Momin Khan (respondent No,1 herein) was employed as Senior Assistant in Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Abbottabad, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Bank'). The respondent was charge-sheeted by the Bank for the allegation of misappropriation/embezzlement of Rs,5,000 and in consequence thereto a regular inquiry was initiated against him in which he having been found guilty of the charge, was dismissed from service on 28-3-1979. In order to look into the grievance of employees of different departments, organizations, institutions being run under the control of Federal Government, who were terminated from service during the period from 2-12-1988 to 6-8-1990, the President of Pakistan under a Notification issued in 1989 by the Labour Division of the Federal Government constituted a Review Board comprising Syed Rizwan Hussain, the then Chairman of National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) and .Mr. M. Zafar Iqbal, Joint Secretary (Finance Division) for review of the category of cases mentioned therein and submit recommendations. The respondent without challenging the order of his dismissal from service before the appropriate forum for a period of more than a decade, approached the Review Board in 1990 for interference.
The Review Board having taken cognizance of the matter gave verdict in favour of respondent to the effect that neither departmental inquiry was held in accordance with law nor there was any evidence in support of the charge to justify the dismissal of respondent from the service and in the light thereof, recommended his reinstatement/reemployment in service. The recommendations of Review Board were not given effect by the Bank, therefore, the respondent filed a complaint before the Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) for an appropriate direction and Wafaqi Mohtasib while entertaining the complaint and having heard the parties, vide order dated 18-1-1992 affirmed the recommendations of reinstatement of the respondent in Bank service made by the Review Board.
The Bank by way of filing a review petition before the Wafaqi Mohtasib sought review of the order dated 18-1-1992 but the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 25-5-1993. The Deputy Registrar NIRC, Islamabad, on the request of respondent, sent a letter on 6-1-1994 to the Central Labour Advisor, Islamabad, for implementation of the recommendations of Review Board and similarly Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs through a letter addressed to the Finance Division with the subject "Reinstatement in service" sought implementation of the recommendations of Review Board. Pending implementation of the recommendations in question, the appellants filed a Constitutional petition bearing No,D-3546/1993 before the High Court of Sindh at Karachi questioning the validity of the recommendations made by the Wafaqi Mohtsib for want of jurisdiction in the matter. The respondent being contesting party, was in attendance in the said petition and without disclosing pendency of said petition, he while invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of Peshawar. High Court at Abbottabad Bench in the matter, filed a Constitutional petition bearing No, 122 of 1997 wherein he sought direction for implementation of recommendations of Review Board. This Constitutional petition succeeded and was allowed vide judgment dated 5-3-1998 impugned in the present appeal. The Bank being aggrieved of the same, preferred a petition for special leave to appeal bearing No, 254 of 1998 before this Court in which, vide order dated 24-6-1998; leave was granted in the following terms:--
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners/Bank contends that the Constitutional jurisdiction should not have been allowed to be invoked as the Constitutional Petition filed by the present petitioners/Bank was pending adjudication before the High Court of Sindh, that respondent No,1 who was dismissed on 28-3-1979 did not challenge the order for ten years and the application made in the Review Board on 25-5-1989 could not legally be entertained by the Review Board as respondent No,1 was neither dismissed under Martial Law Regulation nor on political grounds and that even the Review Board had not found the dismissal of respondent as having proceeded as a result of political victimization. Hence according to the learned counsel, jurisdiction of the Review Board was not attracted. It was further contended that the Review Board had ordered reinstatement of respondent No,1 but learned Wafaqi Mohtasib though had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition had admitted that the Bank had been privatized yet the order passed was that of reinstatement and that too, with all back benefits. Such an order, according to the learned counsel could not have been passed and ordered to be implemented in exercise of extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction. Even otherwise, order of dismissal from service could not have been interfered with by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction in 1997 i.e, after two decades.
8. The contentions urged require examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted."
' Mr. Yawar Ali Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants (Bank) has raised the following contentions:--
(a) That it was not within the competence of Wafaqi Mohtasib to entertain and adjudicate the dispute relating to the terms and conditions of an employee of the Bank;
(b) that the cause of action arose in favour of the respondent on dismissal of review petition on 2- 5-1993 filed by the Bank before Wafaqi Mohtasib whereas the writ petition was filed by the respondent in High Court on 25-3-1997 with the delay of about 4 years which was hopelessly barred by time;
(c) that the Review Board was constituted through an administrative order in the form of notification without any legal sanction, therefore, the recommendations made by the Review Board could neither be binding nor create any right in favour of the respondent to be enforced through the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution;
(d) That the recommendations of the Review Board being against the record and the scope of its power were bound to be ignored as the dismissal of the respondent was not as a consequence of political victimization or conviction by Military Courts;
(e) That, pending adjudication of a Constitutional petition on the same subject, preferred by the appellant Bank before the High Court of Sindh which was also being contested by the respondent, the Constitutional petition before the Peshawar High Court on the same subject was not maintainable.
' This matter was lastly fixed for hearing on 1-2-2002 on which date on the request of respondent, who appeared in person, it was adjourned for today to enable him to engage a counsel. We having heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondent No,1 and examined the matter in detail, find that the essential question relating to the competence of the Review Board to deal with the case and exercise of jurisdiction by the Ombudsman in such matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of the employees of financial institutions controlled by the Federal Government, was not properly attended to and decided by the High Court. The respondent admittedly being an employee of a nationalized Bank (MCB) was proceeded against departmentally for charge of misconduct and having been found guilty was awarded punishment of dismissal from service by the competent authority whereas the scope of review by the Review Board was confined only to the extent of cases in which the dismissal from service was either for political reasons or in consequence to the convictions awarded by the Military Courts. The Notification of Ministry of Labour, Manpower and Overseas Pakistanis dated 20th of May, 1989 through which Review Board was constituted and derived power, would read as under:-- ' No,ER.17(6)/88.--The President has been pleased to constitute a Review Board for the purpose of reviewing cases of employees of Industrial and Commercial Establishments set up, managed or controlled by Government who were removed or dismissed from employment under a Martial Law Regulation as a result of conviction by a Summary Military Court or otherwise purely on political grounds as the case may be.
2. The Review Board shall comprise the following:-- ' Chairman
(1) Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission. Members
(2) Syed Rizwan Hussain, Central Labour Advisor Labour Division
(3) A representative of the Administrative Ministry responsible for the administration of the establishment to which the employee belongs.
3. The Review Board shall take up review of cases after inviting applications from the affected' persons and make its recommendations after examining the available record and affording to the applicants an opportunity of being heard.
4. Any employee of an industrial or commercial establishment referred to in the first paragraph of this notification who was removed or dismissed from employment under a Martial Law Regulation or as a result of conviction by a Summary Military Court or otherwise purely on political grounds, as the case may be, submit a review petition to Review Board by the 31st May, 1989.
5. The National Indusrtial Relations Commission shall be responsible for all administrative and financial matters relating to the Review Board.
(Sd.)
FAZAL KARIM KHAN, Deputy Secretary."
The perusal of notification would show that the cases of removal/dismissal from service other than the categories mentioned therein, would be dealt with under the said notification and Review Board was not competent to exercise its power except in the cases referred therein and consequently, the recommendations made by the Review Board for reinstatement of the respondent in service, being out of the purview of the notification in question, would neither be binding upon the Bank nor have any legal consequence.
' The respondent having moved a representation to the Review Board in 1990 i.e, after about 11 years of his dismissal from service succeeded in getting favourable recommendations for reinstatement in service on 31-7-1990 and later on the basis of same, filed the writ petition in the Peshawar High Court on 24-3-1997 wherein he sought direction for the implementation of the said recommendations of Review Board. The writ petition was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 5-3-1998 when the Constitutional Petition No, D/3546/1993 on the same subject filed by the appellants before the High Court of Sindh was still pending which was later allowed vide judgment dated 18-11-1998 with the following observations:-- ' "From the above it will be clear that the petitioner is a Bank which was originally nationalized but was privatized in the year 1992. The case against a private bank or for that matter any private agency cannot be looked into by the respondent No,1.
' Since the matter pertains to the reinstatement of the respondent No,2 who was dismissed from service by the petitioner therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court where they have held that in matters of personal service the respondent No, 1 has no jurisdiction, is binding. The very recent authority is the case of Pakistan International Air Lines Corporation v. Wafaqi Mohtasib and others reported in 1998 SCMR at page 481. In this case even though P.I.A. Was an agency but as the matter pertained to the service of the respondent No,2 therefore, it was held that the Wafaqi Mohtasib has no jurisdiction to try the case. They have set aside the decision of the High Court and allowed the appeal.
' Based upon the above, the petition was allowed by a short order dated 18-11-1998 . "
The above judgment of the High Court of Sindh attained finality for want of challenge either through an intra-Court appeal or a petition before this Court. The question regarding the jurisdiction of Ombudsman in the matters relating to the terms and conditions of employees of financial institutions controlled by the Government was discussed in detail in the above judgment in the light of case-law and it was held that Wafaqi Mohtasib had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. Having examined the provisions of Article 9 of the "Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983), (P.O.No,1 of 1983)" we find no exception to the view taken by the High Court of Sindh in the abovesaid judgment. Article 9 of P.O.No,1 of 1983 is read as under:--
9. Jurisdiction, functions and powers of the Mohtasib.--(1) The Mohtasib may on a complaint by an aggrieved person, or a reference by the President, the Federal Council or the National 'Assembly, as the case may be, or on a motion of the Supreme Court or a High Court made during, the course of any proceedings before it or of his own motion, undertake any investigation into any allegation of maladministration on the part of any Agency or any of its officers or employees: ' Provided that the Mohtasib shall not have any jurisdiction to investigate or inquire into any matters which--
(a) are sub judice before a Court of competent jurisdiction or Judicial Tribunal or Board in Pakistan on the date of the receipt of a complaint, reference or motion by him; or
(b) relate to the external affairs of Pakistan or the relations or dealings of Pakistan with any foreign State or Government; or
(c) relate to, or are connected with, the defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, the military, naval and air forces of Pakistan, or the matters covered by the laws relating to those forces.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (1), the Mohtasib shall not accent for investigation any complaint by or on behalf of a public servant or functionary concerning any matter relating to the Agency in which he is. Or has been. Working in respect of any personal grievance relating to his service therein.
(3) For carrying out the objectives of this Order and, in particular for ascertaining the root causes of corrupt practices and injustice, the Mohtasib may arrange for studies to be made or research to be conducted and may recommend appropriate steps for their eradication.
(4) The Mohtasib may set up regional offices as, when and where required."
(The underlining is by us to provide emphasis).
The respondent invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court of Peshawar for the implementation of recommendations of Review Board on the strength of recommendations of the Ombudsman but as observed earlier, the Review Board was neither competent to entertain the matter and 'enlarge its jurisdiction to make such a recommendation in the case of respondent nor the said recommendations created any right in his favour to F be implemented by the Bank or enforced through the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. We may point out that the respondent being in contest with the appellants in the Constitutional petition pending before the High Court of Sindh on the same subject could not maintain an independent/similar petition before the Peshawar High Court and since the matter was sub judice before the High Court of Sindh at Karachi, therefore, the respondent either should agitate the implementation of recommendations made by the Review Board in his favour on the basis of which Ombudsman disposed of his complaint against the Bank or should have filed a separate petition before the High Court which had already taken cognizance of the matter. The invoking of Constitutional jurisdiction of the different High Courts on the same subject seeking the same relief either on the same grounds or on different grounds is not permissible. The relief being sought by the respondent from the Peshawar High Court was substantively under adjudication in the Constitutional petition filed by the appellants in the High Court of Sindh and the result of said petition in either way would be relevant to determine the rights of parties. Since the same matter was under adjudication in both the petitions on different grounds, therefore, we are of the considered view that pending disposal of Constitutional petition filed by the appellants before High Court of Sindh, the Constitutional petition on the same subject before the High Court at Peshawar was not mintainable. The respondent despite being an employee of Bank, being run under the control of Government at the relevant time, instead of availing the appropriate remedies available to him under the law, approached the Review Board and Ombudsman for redressal of his grievance but none of the said forums had lawful authority to entertain the representation/complaint of respondent and exercise jurisdiction in the matter, therefore, the recommendations made by the said forums having no legal sanction, were not enforceable through the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
' For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the judgment impugned therein and allow this appeal with no order as to costs.