1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. 10 (2) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)

Leave to appeal was granted to consider the questions, whether the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation was obliged to disclose the grounds to the employees in order to enable them to satisfy the management of Corporation that the action of removal of service against them was not warranted and whether Service Tribunal overlooked that important aspect.

Employee of a Corporation

Status

Relationship between a Corporation and its employee is that of Master and Servant

In case of wrongful dismissal of such an employee the remedy is to claim damages and not the remedy of reinstatement

Such a rule, however, is subject to a qualification that if the relationship between a Corporation and its employee is regulated by statutory provisions and if there is any breach of such provisions, an employee of such a Corporation may maintain an action for reinstatement. Lt. Col. Shujauddin Ahmad v. Oil and Gas Development Corporation 1971 SCMR 566; Chairman of East Pakistan Development Corporation v. Rustam Ali PLD 1966 SC 848; Lahore Central Cooperative .Bank Limited v. Pir Saifullah Shah PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 210; Zainul Abedin v. Multan Central Cooperative Bank Limited PLD 1966. SC 445, Shahid Khalil v. P.I.A.C. Karachi 1971 SCMR 568; A. George v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation PLD 1971 Lah. 748; R.T.H. Janjua v. National Shipping Corporation PLD 1974 SC 146 and Muhammad Yousuf Shah v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation PLD 1981 SC 224 ref. Evacuee Trust Property Board and another v. Muhammad Nawaz 1983 SCMR 1275; Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan PLD 1984 SC 194; Principal, Cadet College, Kohat and another v. Mohammad Shoab Qureshi PLD 1984 SC 170; Nisar Ahmad v. the Director, Chiltan Ghee Mills 1987 SCMR 1836; National Bank of Pakistan v. Manzoorul Hasan 1989 SCMR 832; Sindh Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman v. Muhammad Ali G. Khokhar 1990 SCMR 1404; Karachi Development Authority and. another v. Wali Ahmad Khan and others 1991 SCMR 2434; Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others 1992 SCMR 1112 and Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and 2 others v. Muhammad Sharif 1988 SCMR 597 rel.

Ss. 10(2) & 30

Pakistan International. Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985, Regln. 88

Dismissal of an employee of the Corporation

Regulations framed pursuant to powers under S. 30 of the Act had not been framed with the previous sanction of the Central Government nor these were gazetted and laid before the National Assembly in terms of S.31 of the Act

Regulations, thus, could not be treated as statutory rules of the nature which would bring the case of the Corporation within the qualification that its employees in case of wrongful dismissal could maintain action for reinstatement on the ground of breach of the statutory provisions. ? Evacuee Trust Property Board and another v. Muhammad Nawaz 1983 SCMR 1275; Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan PLD 1984 SC 194; Principal, Cadet College, Kohat and another v. Mohammad Shoab Qureshi PLD 1984 SC 170; Nisar Ahmad v. the Director, Chiltan Ghee Mills 1987 SCMR 1836; National Bank of Pakistan v. Manzoorul Hasan 1989 SCMR 832; Sindh Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman - v. Muhammad Ali G. Khokhar 1990 SCMR 1.404; Karachi Development Authority and another v. Wali Ahmad Khan and others 1991 SCMR 2434; Anwar Hussain v: Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others 1992 SCMR 1112 and Agricultural Development Ba9k of Pakistan and 2 others v. Muhammad Sharif 1988 SCMR 597 ref.

S. 10

Scope and application.

Opportunity of hearing before taking action against a person

Natural justice, principles of

Application. ?Principles of Administrative Law by M.P. Jain and S.N. Jain; Administrative Law by I.P. Massey and Pakistan and others v. Public-at-Large and others PLD 1987 SC 304 ref.

S. 10 (2)

Dismissal/retirement of an employee of Corporation

Framing of a formal charge of misconduct or service of the same on an affected person or holding of a full dress enquiry was not necessary

Order of retirement/removal had to be passed without assigning any reason which meant that it was simpliciter order of retirement or removal without attaching any stigma

Affected person, in order to make hearing meaningful in terms of S. 10(2), should be told the reason, which prompted the competent authority to press into service S.10(2)

Impugned order was not tainted with bias or mala fides or consideration other than the objective of removing from service of surplus, inefficient or corrupt employees without holding long-drawn departmental enquiry

Where the impugned order of removal did not contain any reason though the show-cause notice, which preceded the impugned order contained the averment that "reasonable grounds exist for removing/retiring you from the service of the Corporation", that would not vitiate or change the nature of the impugned orders which were without assigning any reason.

S. 10(2)

Removal of Corporation employee under S.10(2) without assigning any reason cannot be treated as punishment as it is in fact akin to termination of services simpliciter. ?

S. 10(2)

Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985, Regln. 88

Corporation's Administrative Order No. 12 of 1986

Removal/retirement of Corporation employee--?Entitlement to gratuity as well as provident fund etc. Administrative Order No.12 of 1986 indicates that an employee who is removed from service under Regulation No.88 without assigning any reason or is retired is entitled to gratuity as well as provident fund including the contribution of P.IA.C. However, a distinction has been made as to the entitlement of encashment of privilege leave and admissibility of medical and passage facilities between an employee who has been retired without assigning any reason and an employee who has been removed from service without assigning any reason inasmuch as the former is entitled to the above two items whereas the latter is not entitled to the same.

S.10(2)

Removal/retirement of Corporation employee

Show-cause notice issued by the Corporation to the employee cannot be treated as notice for the purpose of computing 90 days notice mentioned in S.10(2) of the Act- as intention to remove expressed in the show-cause notice could not be equated with the notice of removal.

Provision of S.10(2) was not violative of any fundamental rights granted by the Constitution and was no longer on the statute book having been omitted by the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1989. ?