2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The petitioners in all these petitions are employees of respondent No.2, Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited and are aggrieved by the refusal of the respondent No.2, Management, to accept their resignation and obtain an employment elsewhere on better terms despite having agreed to disburse the amount of Rs.50,000 contemplated in terms of the surety bond executed by them at the time of obtaining employment. No reasons were assigned for doing so.

2. In the parawise comments filed on behalf of the aforesaid respondent it was contended that the petitioners were no longer to be treated as civil servants and the petitions as such, were not maintainable. Moreover, the Service Rules of the aforesaid respondents were not statutory and did not provide for automatic resignation of an employee. It was further averred that the petitioners were given in service training and had executed surety bonds of Rs.50,000 committing themselves to serve the respondent No.2 for five years after successful completion of training., Their resignations were declined in the public interest as the respondent No.2 Corporation was a semi-autonomous body working for the public interest under the control of Ministry of Industries, Production and Special Initiatives.

3. Having gone through the material on record and heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the position taken up by the respondents seems to be self-contradictory. Admittedly, services under the respondent No.2 have not been declared to be essential for the life and well-being of the society and no restrictions under the Essential Services Act, 1958, have been imposed. Indeed it goes without saying that the Petitioners cannot be deemed to be civil servants for the purposes of section 2A of the Service Tribunals Act in terms of the pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Mubinus Salam v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC

602. Nevertheless the respondent No.2 though incorporated as a Company is admittedly wholly owned by the Federal Government and admittedly functioning under the control of Ministry of Industries as such it does not follow that it is not performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation. This question has been adequately dealt with in the recent pronouncement of a Full Bench of this Court in C.P. No.D-1591 of 2006 and, accordingly, the objection as to maintainability of the petitions cannot be sustained.

4. Indeed, when the respondents contend that there are no statutory rules whose protection the petitioners could claim it would obviously follow that their employment therein would be treated as contractual and essential features of such contract is that damages is only remedy available to a party aggrieved by breach of the terms of the contract. Admittedly, the damages likely to be sustained by a premature termination on the part of the employee had been duly quantified in monetary terms, i.e. a maximum of Rs.50,

000. Therefore, under no circumstances, could the respondents place any fetters upon an employee's decision to terminate the contract but could only claim damages for its breach.

5. It needs to be emphasized that the concept of master and servant contract pre-supposes voluntariness on the part of the parties and cannot under any circumstances be treated as a master and salve relationship. Article 11 of the Constitution of Pakistan forbids forced labour and compulsory service can be required only by law for a public purpose. The moment the respondents contend that employment in the Corporation is not regulated by any law the imposition of fetters would be violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 11 for the enforcement whereof this. Court can issue directions to any person or authority including any Government. The fundamental right of the petitioners to enter upon any lawful professional occupation also appears to have 'been infringed. For all these reasons, we would allow these petitions as prayed. H.B.T./F-6/K Petitions allowed.