1981S32 (PLP)

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑The appellant who was employed in Pakistan International Airlines Corporation as a "Security Guard", was served with a show‑cause notice on 28‑2‑1967, for having remained absent from duty without any leave from 11‑2‑1967 to 15‑2‑1967. It was further alleged that also on 16‑2‑1967, he was absent from his duty from 16‑00 to 19‑20 hours and even at the time when he came to join his duty at 19‑20 hours he was not properly dressed. The appellant filed his reply taking exception to these charges, but as it was found unsatisfactory, he was issued a formal charge‑sheet on 1 I‑3‑1967, which was followed by a formal inquiry in which ‑he duly participated. However, as he failed to meet the above charges, he was dismissed from service on 6‑6‑1967. He filed an appeal on 16‑6‑1967 but without any success as the same was dismissed on 21‑7‑1967/2‑8‑1967.

2. At that juncture the appellant .filed a civil suit for a declaration to the effect that the abovementioned order of his dismissal was illegal, ultra vires and without lawful authority. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit on 5‑6‑1970, on the ground that the relationship between the appellant and the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation being that of Master and Servant, the declaration prayed for could not be given. Appellant's first and second appeals were dismissed on 29‑1‑1971 and 4‑10‑1971 by the learned Additional District Judge and the High Court, respectively.

3. The appellant has now come up in an appeal to this Court by special leave which was granted on 2‑10‑1972, t6 consider whether his suit against a corporate body for a declaration that the dismissal made by it was illegal, was competent or not.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to Mst. Manni v. Karachi Cantonment Board (P L D 1969 Kar. 304), for the proposition that an employee. of a corporate body can always file a civil suit for a declaration that his services were wrongly terminated. The aforesaid precedent has no relevancy, inasmuch as, the services of the employees therein were governed by formal statutory Rules and Regulations whereas here the learned counsel has not been able to show us any such statutory Rules or Regulations which may be applic able to his case. At this juncture, the learned counsel wanted to refer to a publication known as the "Service Code" published by the P. I. A. but the status and position of that Code was analytically gone into in A. George v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (P L D 1971 Lah. 748), (Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Afzal Cheema, JJ.) and it was concluded that its provisions were not immutable and they were in the nature of mere instructions insued by the P. I. A. for the guidance of its officers for their internal use and were altogether directory.to point out any fallacy in the aforesaid view and in that state of law, in the absence of any statutory rules, the Courts below were justified in holding that this was a case which was governed by the simple theory of Master an Servant, and a suit of the present kind in the aforesaid context was not maintainable.

5. The result is that this appeal has no merit and is dismissed hereby, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. s. k. H. Appeal dismissed.