W.P. No.

24095 of 2009
Amir Shahzad Chaudhary

28.10.2014.

Chairman Bank of Punjab etc.

Mr. Amir Shahzad Chaudhary, Petitioner in person

Mian Jaffer Hussain, Advoctae for the petitioner in W.P.
No. 3225 of 2010.
Mr. Saleem Baig, Advocate alongwith Miss Sumera Fazil
Khan, Advocate for the respondents
Through this single order, I propose to decide W.P.
Nos. 24095 of 2009 and 3225 of 2010, as identical
questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions.
2.

The petitioners in these petitions were employees

of the Bank of Punjab where they held senior positions.

Vide letters dated 20.05.2009 and 12.08.2009, their
services were terminated in simpliciter. Through these
constitutional petitions, the petitioners seek setting aside
of their termination letters and reinstatement into service
with all back benefits. The petitions have been contested
by the respondents. By way of a preliminary objection
they have taken the stance that the relationship between
the parties is governed by the principle of master and
servant. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioners
cannot be granted by this Court in exercise of its extra
ordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of

Page 2 of 24

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In

case the petitioners are aggrieved of any order passed by
the respondent, their remedy lies in seeking damages
from a Court of plenary jurisdiction.
3.

In view of the preliminary objection raised, which

goes to the very heart of this controversy, I propose to

decide the same first.
4.

I have, therefore, directed the learned counsel for

the

parties

to

address

arguments

regarding

maintainability of this petition and the preliminary

objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents.
5.

The learned counsel for the respondent bank

submits

that

this

constitutional

petition

is

not

maintainable as the principle of master and servant is

applicable to the relationship between the parties. He
submits that service rules contained in the HR Manual of
the respondent bank are for internal use of the bank and
are

non-statutory

in

nature.

Consequently,

constitutional petition is not maintainable. In this regard,

reliance is placed on Abdul Wahab and others Vs. HBL
and others(2013 SCMR 1383) and Syed Nazir Gillani
Vs. Pakistan Red Crescent Society and another(2014
SCMR 982) where it has been held that in case a service
grievance is agitated by a person / employee, who was

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Page 3 of 24

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

not governed by statutory rules of service before the High

Court in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution, such
petition shall not be maintainable.
6.

The learned counsel further submits that the

petitioner was not dismissed on the allegation of

misconduct. Therefore, the judgment of the Honble
Supreme Court of Pakistan passed in Civil Appeal No.39
of 2010 reported as Pakistan Defence Officers Housing
Authority and others Vs. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed
(2013 SCMR 1707) is not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case. The learned counsel
for the respondent has further argued that where a person
/ employee was not governed by statutory rules of service
or where the employment / services were regulated by
contractual stipulations and internal rules and regulations
and no specific forum was designated for resolution of
issues relating to employment, an infringement of any
condition of such a contact shall at the most entitle the
employee to avail his ordinary remedy for breach of
contract and wrongful action against him before the
Court of plenary jurisdiction. In such a situation, it could
not be urged that the fundamental rights of the employee
had been violated conferring upon him a right to enforce
the same in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution.

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Page 4 of 24

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

7.

The learned counsel has also referred to the case of

Ms. Zeba Mumtaz Vs. First Women Bank Ltd. and

others(PLD 1999 SC 1106) where it was held that in the
absence of any statutory rules, relationship between the
employer and employee of a corporation, protection
could not be sought under the labour laws or any
statutory instrument in view of the fact that such
relationship is governed by the principle of master and
servant. The said judgment was up held by a larger bench
of the Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case
reported as Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam and others Vs.
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of
Defence and others (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 602).
8.

The learned counsel for the respondent bank has

further argued that the status of the Bank of Punjab was

discussed in a judgment of a learned Division Bench of
this Court reported as Arshad Ahmad Khan Vs.
Chairman, Bank of Punjab and others (2001 PLC (C.S)
207). In the said judgment, it was held that the petitioners
who were employees of the bank and their services had
been terminated could not maintain a constitutional
petition in view of the fact that the service rules of the
bank were non-statutory rules. Bylaws of service did not
have the force of statutory rules or regulations in view of
the fact that under the provisions of Section 25 of the

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Page 5 of 24

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

Bank of Punjab Act 1989, such rules and regulations

required the approval of the provincial government to
attain the status of statutory rules. Since such approval
was missing, the bylaws and service rules / regulations of
the Bank of Punjab could not be termed as statutory rules
and the order of removal from service could not be
challenged in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
The learned counsel submits that afore-noted judgment of
a Division Bench of this Court was upheld by Honble
Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.R. No. 671-L of 2002
vide its judgment dated 27.02.2003.
9.

The learned counsel for the respondent bank has

further submitted that in the light of the judgment of the

Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as this Court,
there are 03 mandatory conditions to invoke the
constitutional jurisdiction of this Court namely:i.

The organization against whom a writ

petition is filed should be one performing

functions in relation with the affairs of the
Federation or the provinces.
ii.

The rules of service must be statutory.

iii.

The person invoking the jurisdiction must be

an aggrieved person.

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Page 6 of 24

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

10.

The learned counsel submits that the Bank of

Punjab was created under a statute but it is being run by a

Board of Directors. In addition, the service rules
governing its employees are non-statutory. Therefore, at
least 02 of the afore-noted conditions are not fulfilled in
the present case and the relationship of the parties is
governed by the principle of master and servant.
11.

The learned counsel has further pointed out that

the mere fact that the respondent bank is owned and

controlled by the government is not sufficient to entitle
the employees to approach this Court in its constitutional
jurisdiction. In this regard, he has relied upon Habib
Bank Ltd. Vs. The State (2013 SCMR 840) where it was
held as follows: Thus even if it is assumed that HBL was a
government owned and controlled bank, on
the suspension of service of respondent
No.1, his service being not governed by
statutory rules of service, he will not be
entitled to maintain a constitutional petition
in the High Court for payment of his salary
dues for the purpose of his suspension as
allowed by the impugned judgment.
12.

Elaborating his argument that a constitutional

petition is not competent even against government

controlled organization if the rules are non-statutory, the

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Page 7 of 24

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

learned counsel has referred to Pakistan Red Crescent

Society and another Vs. Syed Nazir Gillani (PLD 2005
Supreme Court 806) where it was held that in such
cases neither a suit nor a writ petition for the relief of
reinstatement will be competent and on termination of
service only a suit for damages would be competent as
the principle of master and servant will be applicable.
The same principle was reiterated in Muhammad
Mubeen-us-Salam and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan
through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others (PLD
2006 Supreme Court 602).
13.

On behalf of the respondent bank, it has further

been argued that the contact of service which was offered

to the petitioners and was accepted by them are binding
and they are estopped from changing their position and
taking an altogether different stance. He submits that the
termination clause of the contract of service provides as
follows: Your service will be governed by the staff
service bylaws in force and as amended
from time to time and you will be required to
serve at any of the bank branches / offices.
The bank reserves the right to terminate
your services by serving 03 months notice at
any time without assigning any reason. In
case you desire to discontinue the service,

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Page 8 of 24

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

you will be bound to give 03 months notice

in writing.
It is submitted that the petitioners accepted the
aforesaid condition by signing their appointment letters.
Therefore, they cannot be heard at this stage to argue that
the terms and conditions of the contract of service are not
binding on him.
14.

The learned counsel has referred to the HR manual

on the basis of which the services of the petitioners were

terminated in simpliciter. In view of the fact that there
was a valid and binding contract between the parties
which for all intents and purposes was meant to govern
and regulate the relationship inter-se the parties, this
Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, cannot
override a lawful contract which had been duly accepted
and acted upon by parties for a number of years in order
to examine the legality of an action taken by the bank
pursuant to its HR Manual read with the termination
clause of the contract. He further maintains that the
petitioners cannot wriggle out of their contractual terms
and agitate against their termination which was
undertaken on the basis of a contract between the parties.
Reliance is placed on ABN-AMRO Bank through Vice
president / Branch Manager Vs. Wasim Dar (2004 PLC
69). The learned counsel finally argues that admittedly

Page 9 of 24

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

the petitioners received their notice pay as stated in the

termination letters without cavil, demur or protest.
Further, services of the petitioners were terminated in
simpliciter without assigning any reason and they were
given 03 months notice pay. Such termination could not
be termed as termination for a reason that may have
required holding of an enquiry and fulfillment of other
procedural formalities. Reliance in this regard has been
placed on Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam and others Vs.
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of
Defence and others (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 602)
and Ms. Zeba Mumtaz Vs. First Women Bank Ltd. and
others(PLD 1999 SC 1106). He further argues that the
notice pay as well as terminal benefits of the petitioners
were paid by respondent bank. The petitioners withdrew
and utilized the same. As such, the ratio of Abdul Wahab
and others Vs. HBL and others(2013 SCMR 1383) and
Ms. Zeba Mumtaz Vs. First Women Bank Ltd. and
others(PLD 1999 SC 1106) was fully attracted and the
petitioners

were

debarred

from

invoking

the

constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

15.

The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other

hand submitted that the petitioners had performed

services with respondent bank for many years. They were
regular employees and the respondent bank did not enjoy

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Page 10 of 24

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

the discretion to terminate their services at will. He

maintains that the petitioners have been penalized
without issuance of a show cause notice, holding of an
enquiry, giving an opportunity to the employee to contest
the allegations and thereafter passage of an order by the
competent authority. He, therefore, maintains that the
actions of the respondent bank are not only violative of
the principles of natural justice but also against
fundamental rights of the petitioners. He further
maintains that perusal of the record of the respondent
bank shows that there were reasons for terminating their
services. However, in order to bypass the due process of
law, the respondent bank resorted to the device of
termination in simpliciter which constitutes a fraud on
the statute. He further maintains that the respondent bank
is performing functions in connection with the affairs of
the province within the meaning of Article 199 of the
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It is,
therefore, amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of
this Court. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied
upon Abdul Wahab and others Vs. HBL and others(2013
SCMR 1383). The learned counsel further submits that
the petitioners have been condemned unheard. The
salutary rule of Audi Alteram Partem has been violated.
Therefore, this is a fit case for interference by this Court

Page 11 of 24

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

in exercise of its extra constitutional jurisdiction.

Referring to the argument of the learned counsel for the
respondent that the petitioners were estopped from
agitating this matter in view of the fact that they have
received their terminal benefits, the learned counsel
submits that the said argument was irrelevant in view of
the fact that such benefits were credited to the accounts
of the petitioners without their consent. Therefore, the
fact that they did not object to the same cannot be used to
deprive them of their constitutional right to approach this
Court.
16.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

gone through the record.

17.

The main question requiring determination by this

Court is whether this petition is maintainable in view of

the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel
for the respondent.
18.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties,

examining the record and going through the case law

cited at the bar, my answer to the question is in the
negative for the following reasons: a.

Admittedly

the

employment

of

the

petitioners was based upon a contract of service

which provided as follows: -

Page 12 of 24

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

Your service will be governed by

the staff service bylaws in force
and as amended from time to time
and you will be required to serve
at any of the bank branches /
office. The bank reserves the right
to terminate your services by
serving 03 months notice at any
time without assigning any reason.
In case you desire to discontinue
the service, you will be bound to
given

03

months

notice

in

writing.
b.

It has not been denied that such contract of

service was accepted by the petitioners who signed

the same. It is also apparent from a perusal of the
HR Manual of the respondent bank that it is an
internal document governing matters relating to the
service of the employees of the respondent bank.
There is nothing on record nor has it been argued
that the HR Manual falls within the definition of
statutory rules. It is, therefore, clear and obvious
that the terms and conditions of the service of the
petitioners are governed by non-statutory rules.
Consequently

the

relationship

between

the

petitioners and the respondent bank is governed by

the principle of master and servant. As such a
constitutional petition is not competent. In this

Page 13 of 24

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

regard, reliance is placed on Abdul Wahab and

others Vs. HBL and others(2013 SCMR 1383)
where the Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan held
that where a service grievance was agitated by a
person / employee who was not governed by
statutory rules of service, before High Court in
terms of Article 199 of the Constitution, such
petition shall not be maintainable. It was further
held that cases where the employment / services
were not regulated by any law but by non-statutory
rules or contractual stipulations and no specific
forum was designated for regulation of such
services, an infringement of any condition of such
a contract shall at the most entitle the employee to
avail his ordinary remedy for breach of contract
and wrongful action against him before the Court
of plenary jurisdiction. In such a situation, it could
not be urged that the fundamental rights of the
employee have been violated conferring upon him
a right to enforce the same in terms of article 199
of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, 1973.
c.

The

question

of

maintainability

of

constitutional petition in service matters relating to

the Bank of Punjab (respondent bank) has come up

Page 14 of 24

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

for hearing before this Court in a number of cases

in the past. The consistent view of this Court in
this regard has been that the bylaws, rules and
regulations of service of the respondent bank do
not have the force of statutory rules or regulations
and

therefore

constitutional

petition

by

employees of the bank was not maintainable in

relation to their service matters. In this regard,
reference may usefully be made to Arshad Ahmad
Khan Vs. Chairman, Bank of Punjab and others
(2001 PLC (C.S) 207), which was upheld by the
Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. No.
671-L of 2002 vide judgment dated 27.02.2003.
Likewise a learned Division Bench of this Court in
ICA No. 255 of 1999 held that the rules governing
service of the employees of the respondent bank
are not statutory in consequence of which
interference in constitutional jurisdiction was not
warranted. Reference in this regard may also be
made to a judgment of this Court rendered in W.P.
No. 15506 of 2001 in which relying on Arshad
Ahmad Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab Lahore and
2 others (PLJ 2000 Lahore 1948), interference by
this Court in an order of termination of an
employee of the respondent bank was declined on

Page 15 of 24

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

the same reasoning. The judgments of a Division

Bench of this Court, Arshad Ahmed Khans case
ibid, which was upheld by the Honble Supreme
Court of Pakistan deals with the same question of
law and is being on this Court.
d.

In a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court

of Pakistan rendered in Criminal Petition No. 671L of 2002 (Muhammad Ishaq Waheed Butt Vs.
Chairman BOP and 02 others), it was held as
follows: The conclusion as arrived by the
learned

High

around

the

petitioners

Court
fact

services

revolves
that

the

were

not

governed by any statutory rules

and accordingly the writ petition
was

dismissed

being

not

maintainable. The learned counsel

when asked as to whether the
services of the petitioner were
governed by any statutory rules, he
attempted to build up his argument
on the basis of minutes of 52nd
meeting of the Board of Directors
which by no stretch of imagination
can

be

equated

to

that

of

Statutory Rules. There is no

denying the fact that the services
of the petitioner were not governed

Page 16 of 24

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

by any statutory rules and the

dictum as laid down in Arshad
Ahmad v. Chairman Bank of
Punjab

Lahore

LAHORE

(PLJ

1948),

2000

Pakistan

International Airlines Corporation

v. Nasir Jamal Mali, etc. (2001
SCMR 934, admittedly renders no
assistance

to

the

case

of

petitioner.
e.

In the case of Muhammad Mazhar Anwar

Khan Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab (W.P. No.

20794 of 1999), a learned single Bench of this
Court held as follows: The petitioner has not been able
to demonstrate that the service of
the petitioner was governed by
statutory rules. In the absence
thereof, the relationship between
the petitioner and his employer is
that of a Master and Servant and it
was so held in the judgment
rendered in ICA No. 255 of 1999
referred to above. I respectfully
follow the view taken by the
Division Bench of this Court.
Accordingly, this writ petition is
dismissed.
f.

I have asked the learned counsel for the

petitioners if the legal position relating to the HR

Page 17 of 24

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

Manual / Service Bylaws have materially changed

subsequent to the afore-noted judgments and if any
development has taken place during this time that
may support the argument that the service rules
governing employees of the respondent bank can
now be termed as statutory rules. I have further
asked him if there are any distinguishing features
of the petitioners case, that may take the case of
the petitioners out of the ambit of the dicta of the
afore-noted judgments. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has neither been able to point out any
such development nor has he identified any
distinguishing

features

that

may

furnish

justification for this Court to exercise jurisdiction

in this matter to grant the relief that the petitioners
seek.
g.

In the case of Pakistan Red Crescent Society

and another Vs. Syed Nazir Gillani (PLD 2005

Supreme Court 806), the Honble Supreme Court
of Pakistan cited an earlier judgments of the Apex
Court reported as Chairman WAPDA Vs. Jamil
Ahmed (1993 SCMR 346) and Muhammad Yusuf
Shah

v.

Pakistan

International

Airlines

Corporation (PLD 1981 SC 224), in which it was

held as follows: -

Page 18 of 24

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

Where the government while

setting up a corporation does not
reserve itself the power to regulate
the

terms

of

service

of

the

corporations employees under the

relevant statute and does not
prescribe any condition but leaves
it

to

the

discretion

of

the

corporation by empowering it to
frame rules or regulations in
respect

thereof

without

the

governments intervention, then

the corporation will be the sole
arbiter in the matter of prescribing
the terms and conditions of its
employees and will be competent
to deal with them in accordance
with the terms and conditions
prescribed by it. In such a case,
neither a suit nor a writ petition
for the relief of reinstatement will
be competent and the remedy of an
employee, for wrongful dismissal
from or of termination of service
will be a suit for damages as the
principles of master and servant
will be applicable.
h.

I have examined the HR Manual of the Bank

of Punjab in light of the criteria as mentioned

above and am of the view that having been framed
in terms of Section 25 of the Bank of Punjab Act

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Page 19 of 24

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

1989, these do not have statutory force. As such

the petitioners are not legally entitled to invoke the
constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for their
reinstatement into service.
i.

The argument of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the respondent bank had some

grievances against the petitioners and therefore
they were entitled to issuance of show cause notice
and enquiry proceedings has not impressed me.
Perusal of the impugned letters of termination
indicates that the services of the petitioners were
terminated in simpliciter, without assigning any
reason and did not carry any stigma. Further their
services were terminated in terms of their letters of
appointment and on the basis of powers available
to the respondent bank in terms of HR Manual.
Therefore, merely alleging that the respondent
bank may have had some grievances against the
petitioners (regarding which nothing is available
on record) does not, in my opinion, provide
sufficient basis for this Court to exercise its
constitutional jurisdiction to interfere in this
matter. In this regard, reference may usefully be
made to the case of Ms. Zeba Mumtaz Vs. First

Page 20 of 24

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

Women Bank Ltd. and others(PLD 1999 SC 1106)

where it was held as follows:Even if the bank had some
grievances but since action was
initiated under the non-statutory
service rules, therefore, principle
of

master

applicable

and

servant

was

as

such

writ

jurisdiction

was

not

maintainable.
j.

In a recent judgment of the Honble

Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Abdul

Wahab and others Vs. HBL and others(2013
SCMR 1383), the entire case law on the subject
has been examined by a learned Six Member
Bench of the Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan
and the principles discussed above have been
reiterated. In this regard, it would be useful to
reproduce following paragraphs of the said
judgment for ease of reference: Attending to the second part of
the proposition, it is an admitted
position that the petitioners were
employed (promoted) by the Bank
as a result of a prescribed internal
process of the Bank and the letters
of

petitioners

appointment

(promotion) clearly indicate that

Page 21 of 24

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

they were taken into employment

on their unequivocal acceptance of
the

terms

and

conditions

employment, because in the said

letters

(Appended

by

the

petitioners themselves with the

petition), it is clearly mentioned
that you shall be bound by the
rules and regulations of the bank
for the time being in force. Thus
when such offer (of appointment)
was

duly

accepted

by

the

petitioners, it culminated into a

valid

and

contract

binding

between

the

service
parties,

which for all intents and purposes

was meant to govern and regulate
the

relationship

inter

se

the

parties. It may not be irrelevant to

mention here (which may also be
reiterated in other parts of the
judgment) that it is not the case of
the

petitioners

that

they

are

governed by any statutory rules of

service. It is settled law that,
where a service grievance is
agitated by a person / employee
who is not governed by the
statutory rules of service, before
the High Court(s), in terms of
Article 199 of the Constitution
which

petition

shall

not

be

maintainable; reference in this

Page 22 of 24

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

behalf can be made to PLD 2010

SC 676 (Pakistan International
Airline Corporation v. Tanweerur-Rehman) and PLD 2011 SC 132
(Pakistan Telecommunication Co.
Limited v. Iqbal Nasir). (Note: the
question however if that is possible
in terms of Article 199(1)(c), we
have deferred). But the plea that
such law shall not prevent this
Court

while

exercising

its

jurisdiction under Article 184(3);

suffice it

so

say that

while

exercising the jurisdiction this

Court is bound by the conditions of
Article 184 (3); and moreover by
such rules which are laid by this
Court

for

regulating

its

jurisdiction, keeping in view the

principles of restraints. We find
that in the cases of contractual
service,

where

the

grievance

agitated is against a private

person, there is no reason that
such restraint should not be
resorted to by this Court and any
exception should be taken to the
law laid down in Tanweer ur
Rehman case supra (note: even if
it pertains to the writ jurisdiction
of High Courts).

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Page 23 of 24

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

k.

The afore-noted principle has been reiterated

and re-affirmed with reference to Abdul Wahab

and others Vs. HBL and others(2013 SCMR 1383)
and Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority
and others Vs. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed (2013
SCMR 1707) in a recent judgment of the Honble
Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Syed Nazir
Gillani Vs. Pakistan Red Crescent Society and
another(2014 SCMR 982).
l.

The petitioners were employees of the Bank

of Punjab and had accepted employment on the

basis of service contracts and had agreed to be
governed by the service regulations / HR Manual
of the respondent bank. Admittedly the HR
Manual does not consist of statutory rules nor does
it meet the criteria laid down by the Honble
Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgments
discussed above to be termed as statutory rules. It
is an internal document meant to govern the terms
and conditions of the employees of the respondent
bank. Therefore, I am in no manner of doubt that
the relationship between the petitioners and
respondent bank is governed by the principle of
Master and Servant. Any grievance of the
petitioners arising out of the alleged violation of

Page 24 of 24

W.P. No. 24095 of 2009

Amir Shahzad Ch. Vs. Chairman Bank of Punjab

their service contract / HR Manual is not amenable

to interference by this Court in exercise of its
constitutional jurisdiction. The petitioners are,
however, at liberty, if so advised, to approach a
Court of plenary jurisdiction for redressal of their
grievance.
19.

For the afore-noted reasons, I find that these

petitions are not maintainable. The same are accordingly

dismissed.

(IJAZ UL AHSAN)
JUDGE
Approved for Reporting.
!Awais!