2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.

We propose to dispose of above mentioned 7 petitions by a common judgment as the questions of law arising in these petitions are identical.

2. The petitioners in Civil Petitions Nos.507-K to 511-K of 1998 were selected as Trainee Engineer in "Talent Pool Scheme" of Pakistan State Oil (PSO) in the year 1995. After completion of their training, they were issued appointment letters on different dates in the year 1996 which were in identical terms. One of the terms which related to the termination of their employment contained in the appointment letter issued to them, reads as follows:-- "For reasons for any omission or commission on your part and/or for reasons of your conduct/behaviour unbecoming of your position and status in the company and/or, for reasons of any misconduct, you are liable to be dismissed from service in which event you will not be entitled to any notice of termination of service or salary in lieu thereof nor you will be entitled to gratuity or any other compensation or benefit: Provided, however, in case of dismissal from service under this clause, you will be given the opportunity of submitting written explanation and, where so considered necessary by the company, you will be given the opportunity of personal interview also."

3. The petitioners in Civil Petitions Nos.512-K to 513-K of 1998 were appointed as Management Trainee under the "Talent Pool Scheme" on 1-3-1995 and 9-7-1995 respectively. The letter of appointment issued to these petitioners also contains identical conditions regarding termination of their services as reproduced above in the above 5 cases. Through identically worded letters, the service of the petitioners were terminated. One of the termination letters issued to the petitioner in the above cases, reads as follows: "Mr. Ghiasuddin Shaikh (Reseller) 19th September, 1997 Sales Officer, Sukkur Division. Dear Sir, Please take notice, in accordance with the terms and conditions of your Employment Letter No. SA/7010/78998 dated 13-11-1996, your employment/services are hereby terminated with immediate effect by giving you one month's gross salary in lieu of one months' notice of termination together with all dues and full benefits as per your entitlement. You are hereby further directed to please collect all your dues and benefits as applicable on any working day during normal working hours from our Payroll Section. Yours faithfully For Pakistan State Oils Co. Ltd. (Sd.) Arshad Hussain, General Manager Human Resources After exhausting departmental remedy the petitioners approached the learned Service Tribunal to challenge termination of their services in the service appeals but all the appeals have been dismissed summarily on the ground that the termination of petitioners was in accordance with the terms and conditions of their appointment and no illegality has been committed.

4. Mr. Muhammad Muzaffarul Haque, the learned counsel for the petitioners has very vehemently contended that neither any enquiry was held nor any notice was issued to the petitioners prior to termination of their services and as such in accordance with the provisions of Civil Servants Act, the order of termination of services of the petitioners passed by the respondents was wholly without jurisdiction.

5. In Abdul Jabbar and others v. Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. Civil Petitions Nos.391-K to 456-K of 1998; Civil Petitions Nos. 483-K to 484-K of 1998 a similar contention was examined by this Court but it was repelled as follows:-- "In support of the above petitions Mr. Muhammad Mujeeb Pirzada, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the petitioners services were terminated without any prior notice of hearing and that since the petitioners were in service of Pakistan their terms of service shall be regulated in terms of Article 240 of the Constitution. The above contention is devoid of any force: It may be observed that in a recent unreported judgment, decided on 16-4-1998 by a Bench comprising one of us (Ajmal Mian, C.J.) and two other Honourable Judges in Syed Aftab Ahmed v. K.E.S.C. and others C.P.L.A. No.1305-K of 1997 and other connected petitions, it has been held that definition of civil servant given in section 2(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 is not applicable to the employees of the K.E.S.C. as they are deemed to be in service 'of Pakistan for limited purpose of providing a forum for agitating their grievances. It will be pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of the above unreported judgment, which reads as follows: "A perusal of the abovequoted newly-enacted section 2A indicates that the service under any authority, corporation, body or organization established by or under a Federal law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share or interest has been declared to be service of Pakistan. It has also been provided that every person holding a post under any such authority, corporation, body or organisation shall be deemed to be in civil service for the purposes of this Act i.e. the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. In our view, it is not necessary for an employee working in any of the organisations covered by section 2A that he shall also come within the ambit of the definition of the "civil servant" given in section 2(b) of the Act of 1973. The employees of the various authorities, corporations etc. mentioned in section 2A have been treated in the service of Pakistan for limited purpose for providing remedy by way of appeal to them against an order of which they may feel aggrieved. As regards the third ground which found favour with the Service Tribunal in some of the cases namely, that the petitioners were employed on contract basis or they were workmen excluded by the definition of "civil servants" given in section 2(b) of the Act of 1973, it may be observed that since we have held that the latter definition is not applicable to the employees covered by the newly-enacted section 2A, as a corollary it must follow that the exceptions mentioned in clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Act of 1973 will not be attracted to the petitioners cases." In our view, reference to section 11 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment was not warranted by law as the same is not applicable for the parity of reason adopted in the above quoted extract from the above unreported judgment. However, this would not affect the conclusion as the petitioners have been allowed one month's salary in lieu of notice of one month. Mr. Mujeeb Pirzada learned counsel has not been able to point out any statutory rule or provision of law which had been violated by respondent No.1 by terminating the petitioners' services. We may observe that this Court has consistently held that the relationship of corporation/employer and its employee is that of master and servant to the absence of any statutory provision of rule. In this regard reference may be made to the following cases:-- . (i) Lt. Col. Shujauddin Ahmad v. Oil and Gas Development Corporation 1971 SCMR 566, (ii) Chairman of East Pakistan Development Corporation v. Rustam Ali PLD 1966 SC 848, (iii) Lahore Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. Pir Saifullah Shah PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 210, (iv) Zainul Abedin v. Multan Central Cooperative Bank Limited PLD 1966 SC 455; (v) Shahid Khalil v. P.I.A.C., Karachi 1971 SCMR 568, (vi) A. George v. Pakistan' International Airlines Corporation PLD 1971 Lah. 748, (vii) R.T.H. Janjua v. National Shipping Corporation PLD 1974 SC 146, (viii) Muhammad Yousaf Shah v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation PLD 1981 SC 224, (ix) Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Development Bank of. Pakistan and others PLD 1984 SC 194, (x) Anwar Hussain v. The Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others 1992 SCMR 1112, (xi) Riazuddin v. Chairman, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and 2 others PLD 1992 SC 531, (xii) Chairman WAPDA and 2 others v. Syed Jamil Ahmed 1993 SCMR 346 and (xiii) Muhammad Umar Malik v. The Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. through its President, Karachi and 2 others 1995 SCMR

453. The above view was reiterated in recent decisions in the case of Habib Bank Limited and others v. Syed Zia-ul-Hassan Kazimi 1998 SCMR 60 and United Bank Limited and others v. Ahsan Akhtar and others 1998 SCMR

68. We are inclined to hold that in the absence of violation of any provision of law or statutory rule, no exception can be taken to the view found favour with the Tribunal as the petitioners will be entitled to receive one month's salary in lieu of notice plus other dues, if any, payable under the terms of the appointment or internal rules of the company. Leave is accordingly refused and the petitions are dismissed. We do not find any reason to take a different view in the present cases. No case for interference with the judgments of the Service Tribunal is made out. The petitions are, accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused. S.A.K./G-58/SC Leave refused.