2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:-- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and declare that the termination order No.CEM/Admn/E/R-I/1202-07, dated 3-3-2010 passed by respondent No.3 is illegal, unlawful, void, mala fide and without lawful authority. It is further prayed that the impugned termination order dated 3-3-2010 may kindly be set aside and reinstate the petitioner in service, with full back benefits."

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working in Government Vocational Training Institute Kharian as Foreman (Electrical) vide appointment letter dated 22-8-2009 under respondent No.3. Thereafter, the petitioner was further posted under respondent No.4 vide office order dated 2-9-2009. The petitioner was terminated vide order dated 3-3-2010 under Clause (m) of the appointment letter.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 3-3-2010 is against law, illegal, void, mala fide and without lawful authority. It is further submitted that the petitioner was terminated from service without holding a regular enquiry. It is also argued that the termination of the petitioner on one month notice is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the services of the petitioner were not liable to summary termination. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been terminated on the pretext that he was not legally appointed whereas the appointment of the petitioner was made by the authority after observance of due process law; that the representation of the petitioner is still pending before respondent No.1.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was employed as a Foreman on contract basis and his services were dispensed with in accordance with the terms of contract, therefore, he has no locus standi to file the instant writ petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner being a contractual employee had no vested right and in the absence of any infringement the writ petition is not maintainable. It is also submitted that subsequent to the termination of contractual employment of the petitioner, he filed a departmental representation/appeal on 4-3-2010 and his appeal was under consideration but the petitioner has filed this petition on 7-3-2010 without waiting for the outcome of his appeal. It is further argued that the petitioner was contract employee of WAPDA and relationship between the parties was master and servant, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable on this account only.

5. Arguments heard, record perused.

6. The petitioner was a contract employee and the petitioner has duly accepted the terms and conditions of the contract at the time of his appointment by signing the contract, therefore, by enforcing Clause (m) of the contract agreement, the services of the petitioner have been terminated affording him one month's notice. Clause (m) of the contract reads as under: "The appointment on contract shall be liable to termination on one month's notice or payment of one month's pay in lieu thereof, by either side without assigning any reason." In the case of Gohar Ali and another v. Messrs Hoechst Pakistan Limited 2009 SCMR 109 it has been held that "application of master and servant Rule was that an employee of a corporation in absence of violation of law or any statutory rule could not press into service constitutional jurisdiction or civil jurisdiction for seeking relief of reinstatement in service."

7. In the case of Hira Farooq and another v. Pakistan International Airline through Managing Director, Office at PIA Head Office Quaid-e-Azam International Airport Karachi and 2 others 2005 MLD 466 it has been held that "grievance arising out of contractual obligations between private parties could neither be agitated in a constitutional petition nor could be redressed in such jurisdiction." In the case of Muhammad Azam Suhail and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad and others 1998 SCMR 1549 it has been held that "for enforcement of contract, remedy did not lie under constitutional provisions for no contract could be enforced through constitutional petition."

8. For the foregoing reasons his writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./M-310/L Petition dismissed.