P L D 1966 (W (PLP)

Sher Alam and Ch. Hameed‑ud‑Din for Respondent. Dates of hearing: 1st and 2nd July 1965. MUHAMMAD GUL, J.‑This regular second appeal is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated the 6th March 1964, of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, affirming those of the learned Civil Judge III Class, Lahore, whereby Syed Karamat Hussain, respondent, was granted a declaration that the notice dated 30‑6‑1959, terminating his service with the Pakistan Refugee and Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, Lahore, was illegal and void.

2. The respondent, Karamat Hussain, was employed with the Pakistan Refugees and Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, established under the Pakistan Refugees Rehabilitation Corporation Ordinance, 1948 (Ordinance XV of 1948) and held the post of Administrative Officer at the Lahore office of the Corporation. It appears that the Provincial Board of the Corporation constituted under section 12 of the Ordinance, at its meetings held on the 25th April and 26th May 1959, as a measure of economy, proposed to abolish the post held by the respondent. The proposal was approved by the Central Board, on 30‑6‑1959 and a letter by the Secretary to the Corporation at its Lahore office informed him that the Chairman of the Corporation had granted him 56 days leave, on the expiry of which his service with the Corporation would be terminated "as a measure of retrenchment approved by the Central Board". The respondent protested against this notice but in vain. He, therefore, brought a suit for declaration that the aforesaid notice purporting to terminate his service on the expiry of his leave was illegal and of no legal effect. A prayer for injunction was also made to the effect that the Corporation be restrained from terminating his service. The main ground on which the respondent challenged the vires of the notice terminating his service was that the meetings of the Provincial Board of the Corporation held on the 25th April and 26th May 1959, were illegal for want of quorum and, therefore, no notice could validly issue in pursuance of the decision taken at such improper meetings.

3. A number of preliminary objections against the maintainability of the suit on behalf of the Corporation were decided against the Corporation. On merits of the case, the following issue, which is material for the purpose of this appeal and which was concurrently found in favour of the respondent was framed by the learned Civil Judge: --‑ (1) Whether the termination of plaintiff's service was illegal and void? (O. P. P.),

4. It appears that the meetings of the Provincial Board held on the 25th April and 26th May 1959, which, inter alia, considered the various measures to bring about economy in the expenditure was presided over by Dewan Sir Abdul Hamid and was attended by nominees of the Commissioner, Lahore Division and the Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, who were members of the Provincial Board. Three members constituted quorum for the meeting. But under instructions conveyed vide letter dated the 5th February 1958, from the Secretary to the Corporation addressed to the Secretary, Rehabilitation, Govern ment of West Pakistan (Exh. P. W. 4/3), if the Commissioner or any other member of the Board for any reason were not able to attend the meetings of the Provincial Board personally, their nominees could merely watch the proceedings and could not function as members. Therefore, the presence of the nominees of the Commissioner and the Secretary, Rehabilitation, at the aforesaid meetings was not effective so as to constitute a quorum for the meetings. Such being the case, the two learned Courts below came to the correct conclusion that for want of quorum, the meetings of the Provincial Board held on the aforesaid dates were not properly constituted. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation did not challenge the conclusion either. lie, however, urged with some emphasis, that the recommendations of the Provincial Board were subject to the approval of the Central Board and the Central Board vide the minutes of the meeting of its Executive Committee held on the 29th April 1959, approved of the measures of economy proposed by the Provincial Board which, inter alia, included a proposal for the abolition of the post of the Administrative Officer held by the respondent. There is force in this contention, for approval by the Central Board which alone was effective in the matter cured the irregularity of the proposal brought about by want of quorum for the meetings of the Provincial Board which initiated the proposal. It is pertinent to observe that it was the respondent's case in the Courts below that since he was drawing a monthly salary of more than Rs. 300 his service could be terminated by the Central Board only. Since the impugned notice was issued to the respondent after the approval of the Executive Committee of the Central Board, therefore, in my opinion, the notice amply satisfied the requirements of the case for ultimate power for the administration of the affairs of the Corporation vested in the Central Board.

5. There is yet another aspect of the matter, which was entirely overlooked by the two Courts below. It is not controverted that the respondent is an employee of a Corporation and does not claim to himself the status of a "civil servant": and as such the relationship between him and the Corporation was to be regulated entirely by law of Master and Servant and the' Constitutional safeguards available to the generality of "civil servants" will not avail him. Therefore, even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the notice dated 30‑6‑1959, did not validly terminate his service, then his remedy is to sue for damages for wrongful dismissal and not for a declaration and injunction. Gulf Steamship Company Ltd. v. Dilwash Balooch (P L D 1962 Kar. 899) is a recent authority in point. That was a case of an employee of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913, who was wrongfully discharged from service, and who sued for a declaration as in the instant case. Waheed‑ud‑Din Ahmad, J. applied general principle regulating the relationship of Master and Servant to that case and after a review of the case‑law bearing on the point came to the conclusion that the wrongful discharge from service of Dilwash Balooch under a contract providing for one month's notice for discharge would only entitle him to pay for the period of notice plus damages for the period which might reasonably elapsed before he could obtain alternative employment. On this view of the matter, the declaration granted to the respondent in the precedent case was recalled. It is true that the appellant in the instant case is a Corporation established under an Ordinance and not incorporated under the Companies Act. But that does not make any difference in principle for in either case the employee of the Company whether incorporated under the Companies Act or by a Statute cannot claim to himself the status of a "civil servant" who by virtue of that status enjoys certain Constitutional safeguards as to the security of his tenure in service. The Courts intervene to grant proper redress whenever there is an infraction of such Constitutional safeguards which sometime also results in loss of status. The same principle is deducible from Messrs Malik and Haq v. Muhammad Shamshul Islam Chaudhry (P L D 1961 S C 531) which was a case of an employee of a private firm. Relief for a declaration for wrongful dismissal was also refused to a municipal employee in Muhammad Shafi v. Municipal Committee, Murree (P L D 1953 Lah. 163) in which it was also held inter alia that the safeguards provided in section 240 of the Government of India Act, 1935, were not available to a municipal employee.

6. Furthermore, as held in Faiz Ahmad v. The Registrar, Co‑operative Societies (P L D 1960 S C 315) and Noorul Hassan v.

1. G. Police (P L D 1956 S C (Pak.) 331) following the Privy Council's view in Venkata Roa's case (64 I A 55) that a violation of regulations or rules which have no statutory 1 force behind them does not entitle an aggrieved employee to a right to civil action. In the instant case, the plaintiff respondent founded his action entirely on violation of a regulation providing quorum.

7. In view of the authorities referred to above, the two learned Courts below were clearly in error in having granted declaration to the respondent for the alleged wrongful dismissal from employment of the Corporation. The appeal accordingly succeeds and is, therefore, accepted. In the circumstances of the case, however, I make no order as to costs. K. B. A. Appeal accepted.