1998 PLC 19 (PLP)

MAMOON KAZI, C.J.

The petitioner, in each of these petitions was employed by Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") on a contract and subsequently, the petitioner's appointment was regularised by the respondent, as the petitioner was permanently absorbed into service. The petitioners are aggrieved because they were informed by notices respectively received by them that their services had been terminated by the respondent. As several petitions were filed in this Court raising similar questions, the petitions were heard together. It is also pertinent to point out that although some of the petitions had not yet been admitted, but by consent of the parties counsel, these petitions are being finally disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The main ground, urged on behalf of the petitioners, is that the orders passed by the respondent are without lawful authority because neither a prior show-cause notice was served upon the petitioners before termination of their services by the respondent, nor the petitioners were provided an opportunity of hearing. In some of the cases, no doubt, the impugned orders indicated that the petitioner's initial appointment was irregular, but in other cases even the reasons had not been assigned.

3. The petition was resisted on behalf of the respondent mainly on the ground that, the employees of the respondent are not governed by any statutory rules of service, therefore, the relationship between the petitioners and the respondent could only be governed by the principle of Master and Servant and, therefore, those petitions were not maintainable and the only remedy available to the petitioner was by way of a suit.

4. Reference may be made in this regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. and another (1994 SCMR 2232). 1n this case, a question had arisen before the Supreme Court whether violation of a legal right of an employee of the respondent-corporation could be challenged by a writ petition. Although, in this case, it was held that the Rules of Service framed by the respondent known as "Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Rules, 1958" were not statutory rules, but nevertheless, as the petitioner was governed by P.I.A.C. Art. 1956, in case of violation of any provision of law, the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 could be invoked by an aggrieved employee. it was observed by the Supreme Court in this behalf, as under: "7 From the above-stated cases, it is evident that there is judicial consensus that the Maxim audi alteram partem is applicable to judicial as well as to non judicial proceedings. The above maxim will be read into as a part of every statute if the right of hearing has not been expressly provided therein. In the present case respondent No. 1 in its comments to the writ petition (at page 41 of the paper book) admitted the fact that no show-cause notice was issued to the appellant nor she was heard before the impugned order dated 6th August, 1991 reverting her to Grade VI from Grade VII was passed. In this view of the matter there has been violation of the principles of natural justice. The above violation can be equated with the violation of a provision of law warranting pressing into service Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, which the High Court failed to exercise. The fact that there are no statutory service rules in respondent No. 1 Corporation and its relationship with its employees is of that Master and Servant will not negate the application of the above Maxim audi alteram partem. The above, view, which we are inclined to take is in consonance with the Islamic Injunctions as highlighted in the case of Pakistan and others v. Public at Large (supra), wherein, it has been held that before an order of retirement in respect of a civil servant or an employee of a statutory Corporation can be passed, he is entitled to be heard. The effect of the application of the master and servant rule is that an employee of a Corporation in the absence of violation of law or any statutory rule cannot press into service Constitutional jurisdiction or civil jurisdiction for seeking relief of reinstatement in service, his remedy for wrongful dismissal is to claim damages. "

5. No doubt, as would appear from the above observations, in absence of any statutory rules of service, an employee of a corporation would be purely governed by the principle of Master and Servant and resort cannot be had by him to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court in case of any infraction of such rules. However, the said principle cannot apply in case of any infringement of law. The principle embodied in the Maxim, audi alteram partem, meaning that no person can be condemned unheard, is applicable to judicial as well as non judicial proceedings and is to be read as a part of every statute. In the present case, either no reasons were assigned by the respondent while terminating the petitioners employment or in some cases although, reasons were assigned, but no opportunity of hearing was afforded to any of the petitioners. After such appointments were regularised, and the petitioners were permanently absorbed by the respondent, the petitioners were no longer governed by a contract under which they were initially appointed. Simply telling the petitioners that their services were no longer required, without assigning reasons or giving them an opportunity of hearing, amounts to condemning them unheard. Therefore, in the present case, the principle embodied in the said maxim was equally attracted. The termination of appointment cannot be called simpliciter, because when no reasons are assigned, it can justifiably be assumed that employment was terminated for extraneous reasons. In some cases, no doubt, initial appointment of the petitioners was said to be irregular, but no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before termination of their employment. The entire action was, therefore, taken in violation of law, without observing the principles of natural justice.

6. In the result, these petitions are allowed and the impugned action is held to be without lawful authority. It may, however, be observed that fresh action can be taken by the respondent in accordance with law in any particular case, if it so desires. The parties are left to bear their own costs in view of the questions raised. A.A./N-416/K Petition accepted.