1979 PLP 391 (CLC)

Municipal Committee, Landhi, Karachi. Copy to:

1. Mr. M. A. Wajid Farooqi, 30/8 Block 36/B, Landhi.

2. Engineering Deptt., L. K. M. C, for information,

3. Account Section, L. K. M. C, The petitioner No. 1's appointment letter was also identical on material points, which reads as follows :- OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, LANDHI-KORANGI No. Estt : Estt-31 (32)/4983 Dated : 5-9-1973 OFFICE ORDER Mr. Itaqad Hussain son of Askari Hussain is hereby appointed on work charge basis in a purely temporary capacity of work mistry at a pay of Rs. 105 per month (fixed) in the scale of Rs. 105-5-150. The appointment is terminable without any notice or rhyme or reason at any time. (Sd.) (Syed Zahooruddin Ahmad), LCS-I Chairman, Municipal Committee, Landhi-Korangi. Copy to : (1) Iteqad Hussain, (2) Account Section. (3) R. A. O. for Information AA (4) Municipal Engg, for Information.

4. From the perusal of the above-quoted appointment letters, it is clear that the petitioners were appointed purely on temporary capacity. The learned counsel for the petitioners were unable to point out any rule of the respondent corporation under which it could be presumed that the petitioners were confirmed either as work mistries or as sub-overseers. It is also an admitted position that the petitioners do not possess any technical qualification. The selection committee had come to the conclusion that the petitioners were not fit to hold the post of sub. overseers. In our view the question whether a person is fit to hold a particular post falls within the ambit of M. L. O. 55 and, therefore, it cannot be urged that the petitioners' cases were not convered by the aforesaid M. L. O. Be that as it may, even if it is to be conceded that the petitioners' cases did not fall within the ambit of the aforesaid , M. L. O. the question which remains to be considered is, as to whether the above petition is competent for the reliefs prayed for. In the above petition the petitioners have claimed the following reliefs :- It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this hon'ble Court will be pleased to; (1) Declare the decisions and recommendations of' the Selection Committee as mentioned in the order of the respondent No. 1 as illegal, partial, mala fide, ultra vires of the provisions bf the Martial Law Order No. 55, against the principle of natural justice and without lawful authority and quash the same so far it relates to the petitioners. (2) Declare that under the circumstances explained in the petition, the petitioners are not liable to be terminated from service and entitled to be retained on the posts presently held by them. (3) Grant any other relief or reliefs as may be deemed proper under the circumstances of the case."

5. The petitioners in fact are claiming the relief of re-instatement, which relief cannot be granted to the petitioners as they are employees of a Corporation. Our Supreme Court has consistently held that the relation ship between a Corporation and its employee is that of a master and servant, and the relief of re-instatement cannot be claimed by an employee of the Corporation. However, an employee of a Corporation will be entitled to maintain a suit for damages for the wrongful termination/dismissal from service. In this regard we may refer to the case of Malik & Haq v. Shamshul Islam; (P L D 1961 S C 531), the case of Chairman, East Pakistan Development Corporation and another v. Rustam Ali and another (P L D 1966 S C 848). the case of Zainul Abidin v. Musdtan Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Multan (PLD1966SC415), the case of Abdus Salam Mehla v. Chairman, Water do Power Development Authority and another (1970SCMR40), the case of Shahid Khalik v. PIA (1971 S C M R 568) and the case of Lt.-Col. Shujauddin v. Oil and Gas Development Corporation (1971 S C M R 566). The same view was taken by a Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. D. 241/78 decided on 4th October, 1978 to which one of us was a member. In the above case was held that an employee of the National Shipping Corporation was not entitled to maintain the petition for the relief of re-instatement for the aforesaid reason. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the above petition and, therefore, the same is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.