' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 27- 10-2000 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No,104(R)(CE) of 2000.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No,1 was appointed as Deputy Manager in Grade-10 with State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, by the Selection Committee, vide letter dated 15-2-1996, after inviting applications through advertisement, test and interview. The terms and conditions of the service are incorporated in the said letter of appointment, however, according to para. 4 of the letter of appointment, the appointment of respondent No,1 was subject to the Rules and Regulations of the State Life Insurance Corporation. Respondent No,1 was confirmed vide letter dated 3-10-1996 w.e.f, 25-8-1996, but his services were terminated by the competent Authority on 31-3-2000.
3. Respondent Dr. Waseem Imran Sheikh assailed the validity of the order of his termination from service, dated 31-3-2000, through service appeal, which was accepted by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby he was reinstated in service with back benefits of salary and allowances vide impugned judgment dated 27-10-2000. Hence, this petition by the Department/Corporation.
4. Mr. Abdur Rashid Awan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, inter alia contended, that the respondent was not a civil servant, therefore, he could not have availed the remedy before the Tribunal; that his services were terminated by the Corporation, as he was no more required. It was next contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate and properly examine the letter of appointment of the respondent dated 15-2-1996; that the appeal filed by the respondent before the Tribunal was incompetent as he filed the same without availing the remedy of the departmental appeal and that the Tribunal has misread the record and failed to appreciate the provisions of Regulations Nos.27 and 33 of the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent No,1 has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the respondent has rightly approached the Tribunal because the service regulations of the petitioners-Corporation do not specifically provide provisions of appeal against termination of the employee from service of the petitioners; that the termination of the respondent from service, without any show-cause notice, was totally unjustified and against the law. In support of his contentions the learned counsel has relied on Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through its Chairman, Head Office Karachi and others v. Koural Channa and others (1999 PLC (C.S.)
1539) and Syed Aftab Ahmed and others v. K.E.S.C. And others (1999 SCMR 197). He further contended that respondent No,1, according to the seniority list, was a senior employee of the Corporation and his services were terminated, whereas the persons junior to him had been retained in service by the department, which was a discriminatory action on the part of the employer.
6. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and minutely perused the material available on record. It would be pertinent to refer here the provisions of Regulations 27 and 33 of State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973, which read as under:-- "27. Addressing representations and applications.--All representations and applications affecting personal matters shall be addressed by an employee to the General Manager or the Chairman, as the case may be, through his immediate officer, if any.
33. Appeals and applications for revision and review.--(1) An employee shall have the right of appeal or making an application for revision or review, as provided hereunder, against any of the punishment imposed under Regulation 30.
(2) An application for review shall lie to the authority imposing the punishment sought to be reviewed and an appeal or application for revision, as the case may be, shall lie: The bare reading of the above two regulations clearly shows that appeals against the termination from service are not provided in the said regulations, therefore, respondent No,1 had correctly approached the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance.
' In Syed Aftab Ahmed's case (ibid) this Court observed that:-- ' "In the absence of any statutory provision, or any statutory rule providing a right of appeal or right of filing a representation, requirement of filing such an appeal or representation provided in section 4, Service Tribunals Act, 1973 will not be applicable---Service Tribunal was supposed to examine the question on the basis of the law or the relevant rules applicable to the employees concerned..."
' In the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation's case (ibid) this Court laid down that: ' "...Where, however, service rules applicable to employees of statutory corporation/body did not provide for filing of review/representation or appeal against order of departmental Authority, appeal would directly lie to Service Tribunal..."
' We have also gone through the order of this Court dated 2-2-2001, passed in Civil Petitions Nos.1512 to 1514, 1560 to 1568, and 2009 to 2013 of 2000, filed by the present petitioners, and it would be advantageous to reproduce the same, which reads as under:-- '" Learned counsel for the respondents stated that this Court in Civil Appeals Nos.330 to 337 and 436 of 1999 (Pakistan International Airlines (PIAC) through its Chairman and others v. Mr. Nasir Jamal Malik and others) has decided that without issuing show-cause notice the services of an employee whether permanent or on probation cannot be terminated. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner having gone through the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents stated that as the law has been settled by this Court, therefore, he does not want to press the petitions. However, they will initiate action against the respondents in view of the observations made by the Federal Service Tribunal..."
7. After considering the facts, circumstances and case-law, we are of the considered opinion that the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are not tenable. The respondent had rightly approached the Tribunal for relief, and the learned Tribunal, after considering each and every aspect of the case, allowed his appeal with back benefits, as mentioned hereinabove. The impugned judgment is well-reasoned and based on the law laid down by this Court, and is not open to exception. Furthermore, the question of public importance, as contemplated under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is not involved in this case.
8. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is without merit and substance, which is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal declined.