1995SCMR453 (PLP)

SALEEM AKHTAR, J: ‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chambers whereby revision application filed by the respondents was allowed.

2. The petitioner was an employee of Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and his services were terminated on 2‑1‑1982. Having availed the remedy provided under the Regulations of the Bank where the petitioner remained unsuccessful, he filed suit seeking reinstatement which was decreed by the learned trial Court on 3‑5‑1989. The only ground on which the suit was decreed was that the order of termination was not passed by a competent authority. Appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. However, the revision petition filed against the, judgment was allowed and the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner had sought the following reliefs:‑ "It is, therefore, prayed that a declaratory decree to the effect that order of termination of the service of the plaintiff dated 12‑1‑1982/17 1‑1982/11‑2‑1982, passed by the Senior Vice‑President (Mr. A.Q. Butt) the order dated 8‑7‑1982 passed by the Circle Executive rejecting the review petition of the plaintiff and the order of the General Manager dated 26‑2‑1984, whereby appeal of the plaintiff was dismissed, are illegal, without jurisdiction, void and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiff, that plaintiff is still in service of defendant No.1 and that he is entitled to draw all the emoluments with all benefits from the date of his termination from service viz. 15‑2‑1982, till his rejoining the service, alongwith a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner with the performance by the plaintiff of his duties in the service of defendant No.1 may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants alongwith costs of the suit. Any other relief to which the plaintiff be deemed entitled be also granted to the plaintiff." It is admitted position that respondent No.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913 (now repealed by the Companies ordinance, 1984). There are no statutory rules governing the terms and conditions of service nor does the petitioner claim to be a workman having any right under the Labour Laws. The petitioner and respondent No.1 had the relationship of `master and servant'. In such circumstances, there is a well‑settled law that no such relief as asked for, can be granted nor can the petitioner seek reinstatement of service. All the judgments on the point have been referred to in the impugned judgment and need not be reproduced or discussed here. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel contended that respondent No.1 has not issued no‑objection certificate due to which he has not been able to seek any employment and further that the petitioner has so far not been paid the gratuity and other benefits to which he was entitled under the rules. Such relief cannot be granted in these proceedings. The learned counsel pressed in service Articles 184 (3) and 187 of the Constitution. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the proceedings instituted by the petitioner seeking relief of declaration, these provisions can be of no avail to him. Leave is refused. AA./M‑2154/S Leave refused.