2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
NADEEM SHAHID and another Versus CHAIRMAN, STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and 3 others
| Citation | 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan and Abdur Rehman Khan, JJ |
| Parties | NADEEM SHAHID and another Versus CHAIRMAN, STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Master and servant |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Master and servant as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Abdur Rehman Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (NADEEM SHAHID and another Versus CHAIRMAN, STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Sher Zaman Khan, Deputy Attorney-General for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 6th January, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from. the judgment, dated 29-9-1997 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in I.C.As. Nos.665 of .1997, 749, 679, 754, 755, 757, 761, 767, 828, 669, 670, 680, 673 and 675 of 1997, respectively).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Contractual employment-- Termination from service
Principle of master and servant
Applicability-- Services of petitioners were governed by the terms and conditions of contract which they executed at the time they entered the employment of the Insurance Corporation
Services could be terminated after giving 15 days' notice or salary in lieu of notice under the contract of service
Termination order was assailed before High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution
High Court dismissed the petition and Intra -Court Appeal was also dismissed
Contention of the petitioners was that they had been discriminated as a large number of trainee executives similarly placed as the petitioners had been reinstated in service
Corporation counsel stated at the bar that no discriminatory treatment had been meted out to the petitioners and if any person similarly placed as the petitioners, was reinstated, the same treatment would be meted out to the petitioners-- Validity
Where the services of the petitioners were governed by the terms and conditions of the contract, the order of termination did not suffer from any legal infirmity
Subject to the statement made at the bar, on behalf of the respondent Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by High Court
Leave to appeal was refused. Secretary, Government of Punjab through Secretary, Health Department, Lahore v. Raizul Haq 1997 SCMR 1552 and Agha Salim Khurshid v. Federation of Pakistan 1998 SCMR 1930 ref.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
Through this common judgment we propose to dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.317-L to 325-L of 1998, 412-L and 413-L of 1998, 472-L of 1998 and 736-L and 737-L of 1998, arising out of a consolidated judgment dated 29-9-1997, passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in ICA. No. 665 of 1997 in 'various writ petitions filed by the petitioners herein, as the points of law and facts involved in these petitions, are similar.
2. The petitioners were employees of State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan. They were initially appointed for a period of six months on contract basis. Their contract of service was extended from time to time and finally their services were terminated on 6-1-1997.
3. The petitioners challenged the termination of their contract services through separate writ petitions before the Lahore High Court, which were dismissed by a learned Judge in Chamber through common order, dated 1-7-1997. Separate Intro-Court Appeals were filed against the order of the learned Judge in Chambers. The appeals were, however, dismissed on the ground that the termination of contract service of the petitioners was not justiciable in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, in that, relationship of master and servant existed between the parties.
4. The case of the petitioners is that they have been meted out a discriminatory treatment, in that, a large number of trainee executives similarly placed as that of petitioners, have been reinstated in service.
5. Mr. Sher Zaman, the learned Deputy Attorney-General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has made a statement at the bar that no discriminatory treatment had been meted out to the petitioners. He has also given an undertaking on instructions from Mr. Riazuddin, Manager (Personnel), who is present in Court that if any person similarly placed as that of petitioners is reinstated, the same treatment shall be meted out to the petitioners.
6. As to the merits of the case, clearly, the services of the petitioners were governed by the terms and conditions of the contract, which they executed at the time, they entered the employment of the respondents, in terms whereof their services could validly be terminated, which provided 15 days' notice or salary in lieu of notice. The order of termination does not suffer from any legal infirmity in view of observations made by this Court in the case of the Secretary, Government of Punjab, through Secretary Health Department, Lahore v. Riazul Haq (1997 SCMR 1552). The principle laid down in the above case was also reiterated in the case of Agha Salim Khurshid v. Federation of Pakistan (1998 SCMR 1930).
7. In view of the above, subject to the statement made at the bar by the learned Deputy Attorney-General, the above petitions are dismissed and leave declined. Q.M.H./N-71/S Petition dismissed.