IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(REVIEW JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, CJ  
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR  
MR. JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM  
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN  
 MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM 
 
CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NOS.247 to 249 OF 2011 IN 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.239 to 241 OF 2011 
(Review of the judgment of this Court dated 
07.10.2011 passed in CAs Nos.239 to 241 of 2011) 
 
 
AND 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.423 OF 2011 
(On appeal from the judgment of 
Islamabad High Court, Islamabad 
Dated 15.03.2011 passed in W.P. 
No.4853 of 2010) 
 
AND 
 
CRL.MISC.A. NOS.871 to 873 OF 2014 IN 
CRL.MISC.A. NO.533 OF 2012 
(Impleadment applications) 
 
P.T.C.L. etc and others   
 
 
(in all cases) 
…Petitioners 
VERSUS 
Masood Ahmed Bhatti etc and others 
(CRP 247/11) 
Syed Muhammad Dilavez, etc  
 
(CRP 248/11) 
Nasir Uddin Ghori  
 
 
 
(CRP 249/11) 
Muhammad Ashraf & others 
 
 
(CP   423/11) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
…Respondents 
For the Petitioners:   
 
(CRP.247 to 249/2011 & 
CP 423/11):  
 
 
Mr. Khalid Anwar, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
Ms. Zahida Awan, EVP (Legal Affairs), PTCL 
 
 
 
 
 
Syed Irfan Ali Shah, GM (Legal) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Affan Ehsan, Manager (Legal) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Rasheed Zafar, Manager (Legal) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Javaid Mukhtar, Sr. Manager (L) 
 
 
For the Applicants: 
(Crl.MAs 871 to 873 & 
CMA 723-725/16):  
 
Mr. G. M. Chaudhry, ASC 
 
For the Federation: 
 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Rana, Addl. AGP. 
 
CRPs-247 to 249 of 2011, etc. 
2
For Respondent-1  
  
(CRP.247/11): 
 
 
Mr.Abdul Rahim Bhatti, ASC 
(CRP.248/11): 
 
 
Mr. Salman Akram Raja, ASC 
 
Respondent-1 
(CRP.249/11): 
 
 
In-person.  
Respondents 1&6: 
(CP.423/11):  
 
 
Mr. Abdur Rehman Siddiqui, ASC 
 
Date of Hearing:  
 
19.02.2016. 
O R D E R 
 
Ejaz Afzal Khan, J.- These civil review petitions have 
arisen out of the judgment dated 11.8.2011 of this Court whereby 
Civil Appeals Nos.239, 240 and 241 of 2011 were allowed while Civil 
Petition No.423 of 2011 has arisen out of the judgment dated 
15.3.2011 of the Islamabad High Court, whereby the learned single 
Judge dismissed Writ Petition No.4853 of 2010 filed by the petitioners.   
2. 
Mr. Khalid Anwar, learned Sr. ASC appearing on behalf of the 
petitioners contended that where a three-Member Bench of this 
Court in the case of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. 
through Chairman Vs. Iqbal Nasir and others (PLD 2011 SC 132) held 
that the employees of PTCL being governed by the principle of 
master and servant, cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court 
under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 
another Bench with an equal number of Judges could not deviate 
therefrom without referring the matter to a larger Bench. The 
impugned judgment, the learned ASC maintained, is liable to be 
reviewed on this score alone. The learned ASC next contended that 
where Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. (PTCL) is not 
under the control of Federal Government, it cannot be construed as 
a person in terms of Article 199(5) of the Constitution, even if it is 
assumed for a while that terms and conditions of the employees on 
their transfer to the Corporation in the first instance under Sub Section 
 
CRPs-247 to 249 of 2011, etc. 
3
2 of Section 9 of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 
1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1991’) and then to the 
Company under Sections 35(2) and 36(2) of the Pakistan 
Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred 
to as ‘the Act of 1996’) are protected and guaranteed. The 
impugned judgment, the learned Sr. ASC maintained, is also liable to 
be reviewed when it is an outright departure from the dicta of this 
Court rendered in the cases of Principal Cadet College, Kohat Vs. 
Muhammad Shoaib Qureshi (PLD 1984 SC 170), Pakistan Red 
Crescent Society Vs. Syed Nazir Gillani (PLD 2005 SC 806), Pakistan 
International Airlines Corporation and others Vs. Tanveer-ur-Rehman 
and others (PLD 2010 SC 676), Executive Council Allama Iqbal Open 
University, Islamabad through Chairman and another Vs. Muhammad 
Tufail Hashmi (2010 SCMR 1484) and Pakistan Telecommunication 
Company Ltd. through Chairman Vs. Iqbal Nasir and others (PLD 2011 
SC 132). 
3. 
Mr. Abdul Rahim Bhatti, learned ASC appearing on behalf of 
the respondent (in CRP-247/2011) contended that where the terms 
and conditions of service of the employees on their transfer to the 
Corporation in the first instance under sub-Section 2 of Section 9 of 
the Act of 1991 and then to the Company under Sections 35 (2), 
36(1) and (2) of the Act of 1996 are protected, they could not be 
changed to their disadvantage. The terms and conditions, the 
learned ASC maintained as defined in Section 3 of the Civil Servants 
Act, 1973 mean “the terms and conditions provided by the Civil 
Servants Act and the rules”. Such terms and conditions, the learned 
ASC added, being statutory can be enforced through a petition 
under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of 
CRPs-247 to 249 of 2011, etc. 
4
Pakistan. The learned ASC to support his contention placed reliance 
on the cases of Oil and Gas Development Company and others Vs. 
Nazar Hussain and others (2010 SCMR 1060), Syed Tahir Abbas Shah 
Vs. OGDCL through M.D. Head Office, Islamabad and another (2011 
SCMR 1912), Muhammad Tariq Badar and another Vs. National Bank 
of 
Pakistan 
and 
others 
(2013 
SCMR 
314), 
and 
Pakistan 
Telecommunication Employees Trust (PTET) through M.D. Islamabad 
and others Vs. Muhammad Arif and others (2015 SCMR 1472). 
4. 
 Mr. Salman Akram Raja, learned ASC appearing on behalf of 
the respondent (in CRP-248/2011)contended that where the terms 
and conditions of service of the respondents on their transfer to the 
Corporation in the first instance and then to the Company were 
protected by virtue of Section 9(2) of the Act of 1991 and Sections 
35(2) and 36 (1) and (2) of the Act of 1996, they could well be 
enforced in terms of the judgments rendered in the cases of Pakistan 
Telecommunication Corporation and another Vs. Riaz Ahmed and 6 
others (PLD 1996 SC 222) and Divisional Engineer Phones, Phones 
Division, Sukkur and another Vs. Muhammad Shahid and others (1999 
SCMR 1526). The learned ASC in the alternative argued that in case it 
is assumed that the employees of PTCL are not civil servants, the 
terms and conditions of their service being protected by the Acts 
mentioned above could still be enforced under Article 199 of the 
Constitution in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Pakistan 
Telecommunication Employees Trust (PTET) through M.D. Islamabad 
and others Vs. Muhammad Arif and others (2015 SCMR 1472).  
5. 
We have gone through the entire record carefully and 
considered the submissions of learned ASCs for the parties.  
CRPs-247 to 249 of 2011, etc. 
5
6. 
Before we appreciate arguments addressed at the bar, it 
would be rather necessary to refer to Section 9 of the Act of 1991 
and Sections 35 and 36 of the Act of 1996 which read as under:- 
“9. 
Transfer of departmental employees to the 
Corporation. 
-- 
(1) 
Notwithstanding 
anything 
contained in any law, contract or agreement, or in the 
conditions of services, all departmental employees 
shall, on the establishment of the Corporation, stand 
transferred to, and become employees of the 
Corporation, on the same terms and conditions to 
which they were entitled immediately before such 
transfer, provided that the Corporation shall be 
competent to take disciplinary action against any such 
employee.  
(2) 
The terms and conditions of service of any such 
person as is referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be 
varied by the Corporation to his disadvantages.  
(3) 
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law 
for time being in force, no person who stands 
transferred to the Corporation by virtue of sub-section 
(1) shall be entitled to any compensation because of 
such transfer.” 
“35. Vesting of the rights, property and liabilities of the 
Corporation.--- (1) The Federal Government may, by orders, 
direct that all or any property, rights and liabilities to which the 
Corporation was entitled or subject to immediately before 
such orders, and identified therein, shall, on such terms and 
conditions as the Federal Government may determine, vest in 
– 
 
a)  the Company; 
 
b)  the National Telecommunications; 
 
c)  the Authority; 
 
d)  the Trust; or  
 
e)  the Board through Federal Government,  
and become the property, rights and liabilities of the 
respective entity.  
(2) 
An order issued under sub-section (1) shall 
specify the employees of the Corporation who shall, as 
from the effective date of the order, be transferred to 
CRPs-247 to 249 of 2011, etc. 
6
and become employees of the entity referred to in the 
order : 
 
Provided that such order shall not vary the terms 
and conditions of service of such employees to their 
disadvantage.  
(3) 
An order issued under sub-section (1) in favour 
of the Company shall provide for --  
a)  the continuation by the Company of the operations 
and undertaking of the Corporation on the same basis 
as were carried on immediately prior to the date of the 
order 
save 
in 
respect 
of 
the 
operations 
and 
undertakings to be carried on by the National 
Telecommunication Corporation pursuant to section 
41; and  
b)  the dissolution of Corporation as from the effective 
date of the order.  
(4) 
In consideration of the vesting in the company 
of the property of the Corporation, the Company shall 
issue such securities in the name of the President of the 
Islamic 
Republic 
of 
Pakistan 
as 
the 
Federal 
Government may direct.  
(5) 
Unless an order so directs the property vested 
under sub-section (1) shall be free from any charge, 
burden, hypothecation or encumbrances to which it 
may be subject at the effective date of the order.  
(6) 
If any property of the Corporation vests in the 
Company 
subject 
to 
any 
charge, 
burden 
hypothecation or encumbrances the same shall be 
deemed to be on the assets of the company and the 
provisions of section 121 of the Companies Ordinance, 
1984 (XLVII of 1984), shall apply to such charges, 
burden, hypothecation or encumbrances as if it had 
been created on the assets of the Company on the 
effective date for the Company.  
(7) 
If any property of the Corporation vests in the 
National 
Telecommunication 
Corporation, 
the 
Authority or the Trust subject to any charge, burden, 
hyphenation or encumbrance, the same shall be the 
first charge by way of hypothecation in favour of the 
creditor.  
CRPs-247 to 249 of 2011, etc. 
7
(8) 
In this section, “property” includes assets, rights 
and entitlements of every description and nature 
wherever situated and “liabilities” includes duties, 
obligations, loans encumbrance, claims and charges 
of every description and nature (actual or contingent), 
whether or not they are capable, under any law of 
Pakistan or of any other State or under any agreement 
or otherwise, or being vested, transferred or assigned 
by the Corporation.  
(9) 
No stamp duty shall be payable under any law 
for the time being in force on or in relation to the 
transfer or vesting of property of the Corporation under 
any order issued under sub-section (1).  
 
36. 
Terms and Conditions of service of employees.--  
(1) No person transferred to the Company pursuant to 
sub-section (2) of section 35, hereinafter referred to as 
“Transferred Employee”, shall be entitled to any 
compensation as a consequence of transfer to the 
Company : 
 
Provided that the Federal Government shall 
guarantee the existing terms and conditions of service 
and rights, including Pensionary benefits of the 
Transferred Employees.  
(2)  
Subject to sub-section (3), the terms and 
conditions of service of any Transferred Employee shall 
not be altered adversely be he Company except in 
accordance with the laws of Pakistan or with the 
consent of the transferred Employees and the award 
of appropriate compensation.  
(3) 
At any time within one year from the effective 
date of order vesting property of the Corporation in 
the Company, the Federal Government may, with the 
prior written agreement of a Transferred Employee, 
require him to be transferred to or revert him back and 
be 
employed 
by 
the 
Authority, 
National 
Telecommunication Corporation, Trust or the Federal 
Government on the same terms and conditions to 
which he was entitled immediately before such 
transfer.  
CRPs-247 to 249 of 2011, etc. 
8
(4) 
Subject to proviso to sub-section (1) of section 
45 on transfer of a Transferred Employee under sub-
section (3), the Federal Government shall assume 
responsibility 
for 
his 
Pensionary 
benefits 
without 
recourse to be Pension Fund referred to in that section.  
(5) 
Under the order vesting property of, the 
Corporation in the Company, the Federal Government 
shall require the Company to assume the responsibility 
of Pensionary benefits of the telecommunication 
employees and the Company shall not alter such 
Pensionary benefits without the consent of the 
individuals concerned and the award of appropriate 
compensation.” 
A fleeting glance at the provisions quoted above would reveal 
that the departmental employees on their transfer to the 
Corporation became employees of the Corporation under Section 9 
of the Act of 1991 and then of the Company under Section 35 of the 
Act of 1996. Their terms and conditions of service were fully protected 
under Section 9(2) of the Act of 1991 and 35(2) of the Act of 1996. 
None of the terms and conditions could be varied to their 
disadvantage as is provided by the sections reproduced above. Not 
only that the legislature also bound the Federal Government to 
guarantee the existing terms and conditions of service and rights 
including pensionary benefits of the transferred employees. Since 
they by virtue of the aforesaid provisions became employees of the 
Corporation in the first instance and then the Company, they did not 
remain Civil Servants any more. But the terms and conditions of their 
service provided by Sections 3 to 22 of the Civil Servants Act and 
protected by Section 9(2) of the Act of 1991 and Sections 35(2), 36(a) 
and (b) of the Act of 1996 are essentially statutory. Violation of any of 
them would thus be amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the 
High Court. Though in the cases of Pakistan Telecommunication 
CRPs-247 to 249 of 2011, etc. 
9
Corporation and another Vs. Riaz Ahmed and 6 others and Divisional 
Engineer 
Phones, 
Phones 
Division, 
Sukkur 
and 
another 
Vs. 
Muhammad Shahid and others (supra) it was held that the 
departmental employees on their transfer to the Corporation and 
then to the Company would continue to be the Civil Servants, but 
this interpretation does not appear to be correct as they on their 
transfer became employees of the Corporation under Section 9 of 
the Act of 1991 and then of the Company under Section 35 of the 
Act of 1996. Retention of their status as civil servants is thus not 
supported by the words used in the aforesaid provisions.  
7. 
The argument of Mr. Khalid Anwar, learned Sr. ASC for the 
petitioners that where a three-Member Bench of this Court in the 
case of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. Vs. Iqbal Nasir 
and others (supra) held that the employees of PTCL being governed 
by the principle of master and servant could not invoke jurisdiction of 
the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, another Bench 
with equal number of Judges could not deviate therefrom, is based 
on misconception when the employees in the aforesaid case, were 
not those whose terms and conditions of service on their transfer to 
the Corporation and the Company were protected and guaranteed 
under Section 9 of the Act of 1991 and Sections 35(2) and 36(1) and 
(2) of the Act of 1996, but those who were employed on contract or 
on work-charge basis. We, therefore, do not feel inclined to agree 
therewith. The relevant paragraph of the judgment stating the 
difference between the two merits a look, which reads as under:- 
“26.     The argument of the learned counsel that the 
respondents were the employees of the PTCL from the 
date of appointment, regular after 183 days of service 
and entitled to same wages as were being paid to 
CRPs-247 to 249 of 2011, etc. 
10
regular employees of the PTCL is untenable. It may be 
observed that as provided in clause (g) of Order 1 of the 
Schedule to the W.P. (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, 
a contract worker is a workman who works on contract 
basis for a specific period of remuneration to be 
calculated on piece rate basis, while clause (b) of Order 
1 of the Schedule to the W.P. (Standing Orders) 
Ordinance, 1968,' provides that a `permanent' workman 
is a workman who has been engaged on work of 
permanent basis likely to last more than nine months and 
has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of 
three months in the same or another occupation in the 
industrial or commercial establishment, including breaks 
due to sickness, accident, leave, lock-out, strike (not 
being an illegal lock-out or strike) or involuntary closure of 
the establishment, and includes a badli who has been 
employed for a continuous period of three months or for 
one hundred and eighty-three days during any period of 
twelve consecutive months. In this view of the matter, an 
aggrieved person falling within the definition of workman 
would be well within his rights to seek remedy at the 
appropriate forum as provided in Order 12 of the 
Schedule referred to above. However, as held in PIAC v. 
Sindh Labour Court No.5 (PLD 1980 SC 323), the 
respondents had been employed, not on permanent 
basis, but on contract and would be governed by the 
provisions of the contract of service. The nature of 
employment 
of 
the 
respondents 
can 
be 
easily 
understood from a perusal of a contract of service 
entered by Muhammad Idrees Khan, respondent No. 1 in 
C.A. No. 474 of 2010 with the Telecom Foundation, 
which, inter alia, provides as under: - 
   
 
          "TELECOM FOUNDATION 
           SHORT TERM CONTRACT 
Mr. Muhammad Idrees Khan s/o Haji Chamnay Khan is 
hereby contracted in Telecom Foundation as Cable 
Guard with effect from ______ at the rate of Rs.153/- per 
day (Rs.4600/- per month). He is directed to report to A.E. 
O.F.C. (PTCL) Peshawar for further deployment as and 
CRPs-247 to 249 of 2011, etc. 
11
where required by them on the following terms and 
conditions: - 
          1. PERIOD OF CONTRACT 
    Service shall be on contract for a period of Eighty Nine 
(89) days. 
          9. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT 
  This contract shall be liable to termination any time 
without notice even on account of _______ political 
activities, trade unions and due to misconduct and 
unsatisfactory service. 
Manager (M&T) 
Telecom Foundation 
I, Muhammad Idrees Khan s/o Chamnay Khan 
resident of Village Bab-e-Jadeed P.O. TaruJabba Tehsil & 
District Nowshera, have carefully read the above 
instructions and agree to the terms and conditions for the 
employment as Cable Guard on contract basis." 
All the employees having entered into contracts of 
service on the same or similar terms and conditions have 
no 
vested 
right 
to 
seek 
regularization 
of 
their 
employment, which is discretionary with the master. The 
master is well within his rights to retain or dispense with 
the services of an employee on the basis of satisfactory 
or otherwise performance. The contract employees have 
no right to invoke writ jurisdiction, particularly in the 
instant case where their services have been terminated 
on completion of period of contract. Since they fall 
within the definition of workman, they would be entitled 
to one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof, as 
permissible to them under the rule of master and 
servant.” 
8. 
The 
argument 
that 
where 
Pakistan 
Telecommunication 
Corporation Limited was not under the control of the Federal 
Government it cannot be construed as a person in terms of Article 
199(5) of the Constitution is also misconceived as this question has 
been set at rest by this Court in the same by holding as under:- 
CRPs-247 to 249 of 2011, etc. 
12
22.    The question whether the PTCL was a `person' 
performing functions in connection with the affairs of 
the Federation within the contemplation of Article 
199(5) of the Constitution was first dilated upon by this 
Court at great length in Muhammad Zahid's case in 
which the plethora of case law was gone into and it 
was held that the employees of the erstwhile T&T 
Department transferred to the Corporation [PTC] under 
the relevant provisions of the Act of 1991 and later/on 
succeeded by the PTCL, discharging their functions 
and duties in the International Gateway Exchange as 
Operators were inducted permanently or regularized 
subsequently under the rules necessarily related to one 
of the affairs of the Federation within the purview of 
provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution; hence 
similar duties and functions in the International 
Gateway Exchange being discharged by the private 
respondents as Operators could not be distinguished to 
say that the same did not relate to the affairs of the 
Federation though conferred upon the Corporation 
[PTC], and finally upon the PTCL. It was further held that 
the Telecommunication undisputedly was the subject 
which pertained to one of the important affairs of the 
Federation dischargeable now through the PTCL; 
hence such entity involved in the same exercise of the 
sovereign 
powers, 
essentially 
fell 
within 
the 
connotations of the word `person' as defined in clause 
(5) of the Article 199 of the Constitution; accordingly, 
the 
grievance 
of 
the 
private 
respondents 
was 
amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. 
However, it was observed that the status of the private 
respondents, be that of a `worker' or a `civil servant' or 
a 
`contract 
employee' 
had 
no 
nexus 
to 
the 
maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of 
discrimination meted out to them. 
23.     It may also be added here that as rightly held by 
a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh in 
the judgment impugned in C.A. No. 883 of 2010 that 
the Federal Government had first sold 12% shares 
through public subscription and then it sold 26% [all of B 
CRPs-247 to 249 of 2011, etc. 
13
class shares] to the EIP and the remaining 62% shares of 
PTCL were still owned by the Federal Government and 
as long as the Government owned majority shares in 
said entity either in its own name, or whether wholly or 
partially in the name of any other organization or entity 
controlled by the Government, PTCL was and should 
continue to be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High 
Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. In this view 
of the matter, the argument that the PTCL was not a 
person within the meaning of Article 199(5) of the 
Constitution is not tenable. 
24.    However, this Court, in the case of Principal Cadet 
Collage Kohat v. Muhammad Shoaib Qureshi (PLD 1984 
SC 170), while dealing with the question, as to whether 
in absence of any breach of statutory provision the 
employees of a corporation can maintain an action for 
reinstatement, held that where the conditions of 
service of an employee of a statutory body were 
governed by statutory rules, any action prejudicial 
taken against him in derogation or in violation of the 
said rules could be set aside by a writ petition; 
however, where his terms and conditions were not 
governed by statutory rules but only by regulations, 
instructions or directions, which the institution or body, in 
which he was employed, had issued for its internal use, 
any violation thereof would not, normally, be enforced 
through a writ petition. Recently, this Court in Tanweer-
ur-Rehman's case (supra), while dealing with the issue 
of invoking of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 
199 of the Constitution by the employees of the PIAC, 
held that although the appellant-Corporation was 
performing functions in connection with the affairs of 
the 
Federation, 
but 
since 
the 
services 
of 
the 
respondent-employees 
were 
governed 
by 
the 
contracts executed by them with the employer, and 
not by the statutory rules framed under section 30 of 
the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956 
with the prior approval of the Federal Government, 
therefore, they would be governed by the principle of 
`Master and Servant'. On the question whether in 
CRPs-247 to 249 of 2011, etc. 
14
absence of any breach of statutory provision, the 
employees of appellant-Corporation could maintain 
an action for reinstatement etc.., it was observed that 
the said question needed no further discussion in view 
of the fact that this Court was not of the opinion that if 
a 
Corporation 
was 
performing 
its 
functions 
in 
connection with the affairs of the Federation, the 
aggrieved persons could approach the High Court by 
invoking its constitutional jurisdiction. But as far as the 
cases of the employees regarding their individual 
grievances were concerned, it was held that they were 
to be decided on their own merits, namely, if any 
adverse action was taken by the employer in violation 
of the statutory rules, only then such action would be 
amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Therefore, in absence 
of statutory rules, the principle of `Master and Servant' 
would be applicable and such employees would be 
entitled to seek remedy permissible before the Court of 
competent jurisdiction. Similarly, in M. Tufail Hashmi 
(supra), after discussing the aforesaid two judgments in 
detail, it was held that the employees of those 
organizations, which were performing functions in 
connection with the affairs of Federation, were eligible 
to approach the High Court under Article 199 of the 
Constitution if their services were governed by statutory 
rules. It was further held that since the employees of 
AIOU, SME Bank and Pakistan Steel Mills, who 
approached the Service Tribunal for redressal of their 
grievances, were not enjoying the protection of 
statutory rules, therefore, the Service Tribunal had no 
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such matters and they 
would be governed by the principle of `Master and 
Servant'. 
9. 
The same view was held in the case of Pakistan Telecommunication 
Company Limited through General Manager and another Vs. Muhammad 
Zahid and 29 others (2010 SCMR 253) which attained finality as review 
thereagainst was also dismissed. We, therefore, hold that the view taken in 
the impugned judgment is not a departure much less outright from         
CRPs-247 to 249 of 2011, etc. 
15
the dicta of this Court laid down in the cases of Principal Cadet 
College, Kohat Vs. Muhammad Shoaib Qureshi, Pakistan Red 
Crescent Society Vs. Syed Nazir Gillani, Executive Council Allama 
Iqbal Open University, Islamabad through Chairman and another Vs. 
Muhammad 
Tufail 
Hashmi 
and 
Pakistan 
Telecommunication 
Company Ltd. through Chairman Vs. Iqbal Nasir and others, Pakistan 
International Airlines Corporation and others Vs. Tanveer-ur-Rehman 
and others, Oil and Gas Development Company and others Vs. 
Nazar Hussain and others, Syed Tahir Abbas Shah Vs. OGDCL through 
M.D. Head Office, Islamabad and another, Muhammad Tariq Badar 
and another Vs. National Bank of Pakistan and others, and Pakistan 
Telecommunication Employees Trust (PTET) through M.D. Islamabad 
and 
others 
Vs. 
Muhammad 
Arif 
and 
others, 
Pakistan 
Telecommunication Corporation and another Vs. Riaz Ahmed and 6 
others, and Divisional Engineer Phones, Phones Division, Sukkur and 
another Vs. Muhammad Shahid and others (supra).  
10. 
Having thus considered, we do not think a case for review of 
the judgment of this Court dated 7.10.2011 is made out. These review 
petitions as well as Civil Petition No. 423 of 2011 being without merits 
are dismissed. These are the detailed reasons for our short order 
dated 19.02.2016.          
Chief Justice 
 
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
ISLAMABAD. 
19th February, 2016. 
M. Azhar Malik/* 
Not approved for reporting  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
CRPs-247 to 249 of 2011, etc. 
16
CRPs-247 to 249 of 2011, etc. 
17
(Short order) We have heard arguments of the learned ASCs. 
For the reasons to be recorded separately, Civil Review Petition Nos. 
247 to 249 of 2011 are dismissed; leave is refused and Civil Petition 
No.423 of 2011 is dismissed. Criminal Miscellaneous Application Nos. 
871 to 873 of 2014 & Civil Miscellaneous Application Nos. 723 to 725 
of 2015 have become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 
