1. ' GHULAM NABI SOOMRO, J.---The Nineteen Petitioners, all Bank Officials in different Grades serving in different Branches in Sukkur Region of the Allied Bank of Pakistan, have filed the present petition against the President, and three other Vice-Presidents, all by name and the Federation of Pakistan with the following prayers:
(a) That the so-called special audit and its reports arranged as stated above by respondent No,1 Mr. Muneer Ahmed Chaudhry in respect of the petitioners are biased, mala fide, invalid, not lawfully made and of no legal effect and consequence.
(b) That the said special audit and its reports cannot provide a lawful basis for any lawful administrative action against the petitioners.
(c) That the charge sheets served on the petitioners on the basis of above invalid reports are of no legal effect and no valid administrative action can be taken against the petitioners on their basis.
(2) To order respondent No,1 (a) to appoint an above board, independent and unbiased team of auditors with undisputed reputation for fairness and integrity to properly look into and get at the bottom of all the matters referred to in the above reports and to suggest appropriate measures for dealing with the same.
(b) That in the meantime no adverse action be taken against the petitioners pending results of the probe mentioned in the clause 2(a) above.
(c) That if found justified, appropriate action be taken against respondent Mr. Muneer Ahmed Chaudhry in the light of the final position emerging out of the above mentioned probe.
(3) Any other relief that this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to grant.
2. ' Mr. Rasool Bux Palejo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners arguing the point of maintainability of the petition dilated at great length, on various provisions of laws such as follows:
(i) Sections 5,6, 41 & 42 of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 contending that the control of the Banks in the country, lies with the Federal Government and that the Ordinance holds the field even today.
(ii) Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974 specifically says that the status of the employees of (Banks) shall not be taken to be in their disadvantage and that since entire property vested in the Government by virtue of the said Act, all officiers and employees of Banks, are to be deemed as Civil Servants. Further section 2-A incorporated later in the Service Tribunal Act, also affirms such status of the petitioners. Reliance was placed upon PLD 2001 Kar.
3. 60.
(iii) Mr. Palejo then referred to Privatization Agreements at its Page No,4 and Part No,1 and also relied upon PLD 2002 SC 1111 (Raoof B. Qadri v. State Bank of Pakistan and another). He contended that the Allied Bank is under the control of the State Bank, which is under the control of Federal Government hence control of State Bank, over the Allied Bank would be deemed to be control of the Federal Government, and
(iv) Section 7 of the Protection of the Economic Reforms Act, 1992.
4. ' It was lastly argued that the petitioners cannot approach the Services Tribunal because no final order has been passed. Reliance was placed upon 1992 (SC) 1222 (a)(b) and 1995 PLC (C.S.) 1057.
5. ' On the other hand Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposing the question, gave a summary of the 'Bank's emergence with its new name, after its merger with Smaller Banks. Speaking on the Banks status, he submitted that 51% shares were sold away to private parties and only 49% of the shares were owned by the Government. He argued that the petitioners could very well approach the Services Tribunal, especially when the word "final" stood omitted from the provision of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. He placed reliance upon 2001 PLC 607 and unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil. Petitions 2767-L, 3030-L of 2000, 1576 and 235 of 2001.
6. ' Referring to Article 199 (5) of the Constitution, it was urged by him that the Allied Bank being a private Bank, no writ jurisdiction could be invoked against it or its officials.
7. ' He submitted that in the cases of some of the petitioners, there were only certain enquiries to be made whereas in case of others only charge sheets are issued. It was added that the enquires are conducted strictly in accordance with the relevant rules.
8. ' He referred to the final order passed in W.P. 11827 of 2000 and submitted that the respondent Bank was not controlled by the Government, it was a private entity so Article 199 of the Constitution, cannot be invoked and the petitioners could approach the Services Tribunal. Reference was also made to PLD 1979 Kar.
640. It was then contended that the petitioners' position vis a vis the respondents, is that of a Servant and a Master. He referred to the judgment in the case of Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others (PLD 1984 Supreme Court 194), which, it was argued, was re-affirmed in the case of United Bank Limited and others v. Ahsan Akhtar and others (1998 SCMR 68) and prayed that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. ' Mr. Palejo in reply to the above, urged that the provisions of Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 have been overlooked and bypassed as it did not come for detailed analysis before a competent forum. Main thrust of his argument, as may be summed up, was on the point that under the Ordinance 1962, control of the respondent Bank and other Banks lay with the Federal Government.
10. He prayed that the Petition be admitted and consequential order be passed.
11. ' The point of jurisdiction stands well-settled.
12. ' In W.P. 11827 of 2000, learned Lahore High Court while dismissing the petition in limine against the Allied Bank of Pakistan, by order dated 9-5-2001, while deciding preliminary objection relating to the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, upheld such objection.
13. ' By an order dated 12-6-1997 passed by a Division Bench of this Court comprising Memoon Qazi, CJ. And Majida Rizvi, J., in an identical C.P. No, D-1838 (Syed Anis Haidar v. President, UBL and others) while dismissing the petition in limine, held that the four respondents, the President, the Executive Vice-President, Senior Vice-President and Vice-President of the Bank (United Bank Limited) were not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court as none of them was a person performing functions either in connection with the affairs of Federation or a Province.
14. ' The Honourable Supreme Court in the Civil Petitions Nos.2767-L, 3030-L of 2000, 157-L, 235 of 2001 filed by Muhammad lqbal Sipra and three others against the President, Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited etc. By its order dated 9-1-2002, relying upon its judgment passed in Civil Petition No,27-L of 1998 (Rao Ghulam. Murtaza v. MCB and others) refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petitions while upholding the view taken by the learned Federal Service Tribunal that, "Respondent Bank was not owned or controlled by Federal Government, after its privatization and that the employees/ officers of said bank were not holding any post in connection with the affairs of the Federation and shall not be deemed to be Civil Servants for the purpose of Service tribunal Act, 1973.".
15. ' In view of the above, we have no alternative but to dismiss the present petition. So we dismiss the same in limine along with the listed applications. In the circumstances of the case, however, we would direct the interim order passed in the petition to remain in force for one month i,e, till 9th June, 2003.