ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.No.D-3211  of  2016

_______________________________________________________

Date                         Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________

Fresh  Case

1.For orders on Misc.No.16352/2016

2.For orders on Misc.No.16353/2016

3.For orders on Misc.No.16354/2016

4.For hearing of main case.

01.06.2016

Mr.Khalid Akhter, Advocate for the Petitioners.

                                                ----

1.       Granted.

2.       Exemption granted.

3-4.   This petition has been brought against Saudi Arabian Airlines and its Station Manager for seeking directions against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to give the petitioners status of permanent employees. The petitioners have further sought restraining orders against the same respondents from initiating proceedings for termination of their services and reinstatement on their previous status. At the same time they have prayed for the directions that if the respondents have accepted the resignations of the petitioners they may be directed to discard the resignations and allow the petitioners to join their duties.

To a basic question raised by this court that admittedly Saudi Arabian Airlines has no statutory rules of service and it is also a private establishment against which the writ does not lie. The learned counsel for the petitioners though failed to controvert or satisfy this query, but he insisted that under Article 199 of the Constitution this petition is maintainable against the respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is well settled proposition of law that in service matters writ does not lie against any entity which has no statutory rules of service or against a private establishment in which Government has no controlling shares. Even Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) in which controlling shares are vested in the Government of Pakistan does not have their statutory rules of service,  therefore,  time and again the apex court has held that the writ against PIAC is not maintainable for the reasons that they have no statutory rules of service. In the case in hand also the writ petition has been filed against a private entity which is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court.

In view of the above, this petition is dismissed in limine. However, the petitioners are at liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

Judge

Judge

ns