2019 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

SHAKEEL AHMAD, J.

Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner Fidaullah son of Saitullah Khan seeks indulgence of this Court for reinstatement in service with all back benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case are that vide appointment order dated 21.01.2013, the petitioner was appointed as Teacher in Working Folks Grammer School, Ghazni Khel (Male) on contract basis for a period of 03 years. In pursuance thereof he submitted his joining/charge report on 22.01.2013. Vide office order dated 16.9.2013, the petitioner was terminated from service under clause 4 of his appointment letter, which reads as under:- "Notice of termination of appointment: During the probation period your services can be terminated without any notice or assigning any reason. After successful completion of the probationary period your services can be terminated on one month, notice or pay in lieu thereof on either side, provided that such termination is not due to misconduct for which you will be terminated without any notice." Hence, this petition.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis after fulfilling all prescribed procedure of Workers Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997 for a period of 03 years but, before expiry of his contractual period, he was terminated on the ground that his qualification was irrelevant; that in earlier round of litigation many employees whose services were terminated, brought constitutional petitions, which were allowed by this Court through a consolidated judgment dated 04.10.2017 in W.P.No.1392-P/2013, therefore, the petitioner also deserves the same treatment and the impugned termination order is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned Asstt: A.G. present in the Court accepted notice of this petition and argued that the Workers Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997 is non-statutory and in the circumstances the relationship between the respondents and petitioner was of master and servant and in case of any wrongful termination, the petitioner cannot seek reinstatement and at the most he can file a suit for damages.

5. Arguments heard and record perused.

6. Perusal of the record reflects that vide appointment letter dated 21.01.2013, the petitioner was appointed as Teacher in Working Folks Grammer School, Ghazni Khel on contract basis for a period of 03 years, on the terms and conditions mentioned therein and his service was terminated under clause 4 of his appointment letter. Admittedly, the petitioner is a contractual employee. He is governed by terms and conditions of his appointment order. The respondents have their own service rules but, admittedly, the same are non-statutory rules and in the circumstances the relationship between the respondents and the petitioner was of master and servant. It may be observed that the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has consistently held that in the absence of any statutory service rules, relationship between the employer and an employee is that of master and servant. In this regard reliance is placed on the following judgments:- i. Shahid Khalil v. P.I.A.C. 1971 SCMR 568; ii. Muhammad Yousuf Shah v. P.I.A.C. PLD 1981 SC 224; iii. Raziuddin v. Chairman P.I.A.C. PLD 1992 SC 531; iv. Lt.-Col. Shujauddin Ahmed v. Oil and Gas Development Corporation 1971 SCMR 566; v. Chairman of East Pakistan Development Corporation v. Rustam Ali PLD 1966 SC 848; vi. Lahore Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Pir Saifullah Shah PLD 1959 SC 210; vii. Zainul Abedin v. Multan Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. PLD 1966 SC 445; viii. R.T.H. Janua v. National Shipping Corporation PLD 1974 SC 146; ix. Evacuee Trust Property Board v. Muhammad Nawaz 1983 SCMR 1275; x. Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan PLD 1984 SC 194; xi. Principal, Cadet College, Kohat v. Muhammad Shoab Qureshi PLD 1984 SC 170; xii. Nisar Ahmad v. The Director, Chiltan Ghee Mill 1987 SCMR 1836; xiii. National Bank of Pakistan v. Manzoorul Hassan 1989 SCMR 832; xiv. Sindh Road Transport Corporation v. Muhammad Ali G. Khokhar 1990 SCMR 1404; xv. K.D.A. v. Wali Ahmed Khan 1991 SCMR 2434; xvi. Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Bank 1992 SCMR 1112; xvii. Agricultural Development Bank v. Muhammad Sharif 1988 SCMR 597. xviii. PIA Corporation and others v. Tanveer-ur-Rahman and others PLD 2010 SC 676. xix. Chairman State Life Insurance Corporation and others v. Hamayun Irfan and 02 others 2010 SCMR 1495. xx. Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Ltd. Through Chairman v. Iqbal Nasir and others PLD 2011 SC

132. Reliance can also be placed on the case of "Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. and another" (1994 SCMR 2232), wherein the apex Court held as under:- "(e) Master and servant

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199

Employee of a Corporation

Absence of statutory rules

Remedy

Application of master and servant rule

Effect of the application of master and servant rule is that employee of a Corporation in the absence of violation of law or any statutory rule cannot press into service Constitutional jurisdiction or civil jurisdiction for seeking relief of reinstatement in service

Remedy of such employee for wrongful dismissal would be to claim damages." Reliance is also placed on the pronouncement of the Lahore High Court in "A. George v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation" (PLD 1971 Lahore 748), wherein it has been held:- "(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.21 and 22, Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 177 and Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act (XIX of 1956), S. 3

Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, a statutory body and amenable to various controls by Central Government

Corporation, nevertheless, not a branch of Government

Employee of Corporation not servant of State and not entitled to guarantees and safeguards provided to State servants under Constitution of Pakistan (1962)

Relationship of Corporation and its employees, purely that of master and servant under general law

Contract of service, between Corporation and its employee, not capable of specific enforcement under S. 21, Specific Relief Act, 1877."

7. Adverting to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the earlier round of litigation this Court reinstated the terminated employees of the Working Folks Grammer School through a consolidated judgment dated 04.10.2017 in W.P. No. 1392-P/2013 "Naimatullah v. Chairman Workers Welfare Board and others", this judgment was assailed before august Supreme Court of Pakistan and vide judgment dated 08.01.2018, the civil petitions were converted into appeals and allowed and the impugned judgment of this Court was set aside. The relevant portion of the judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan is reproduced as under:- "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that contractual employees have no right to be regularized until there is a law provided to that effect and we are not confronted with any such legal proposition. They are the contractual employees and they have to serve till the pleasure of their master and in case of any wrongful termination, which according to them has taken place, they cannot seek their reinstatement. At the best, they can only have the compensation for the wrongful termination by applying to the competent Court of law. Resultantly, these petitions are converted into appeals and allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside."

8. During the arguments, we were informed that review petition has been filed against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan (referred to hereinabove), which is subjudice. In this respect it is held that the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek appropriate relief provided under the law, if the review petition is allowed.

9. For what has been discussed above, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is dismissed in limine. ZC/207/P Petition dismissed.