1989 PLP 186 (PLC)
NAYAZ AHMAD KHAN Versus Messrs GLAXO LABORATORIES (PAKISTAN) LIMITED
| Citation | 1989 PLP 186 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Muhammad Mazhar Ali, JJ |
| Parties | NAYAZ AHMAD KHAN Versus Messrs GLAXO LABORATORIES (PAKISTAN) LIMITED |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 186 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 186 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Muhammad Mazhar Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 186 (PLC) (NAYAZ AHMAD KHAN Versus Messrs GLAXO LABORATORIES (PAKISTAN) LIMITED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A.Q. Malik for Petitioner.
- Rafat Osmani for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
A.Q. Malik for Petitioner. Rafat Osmani for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th April, 1988. AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑The petitioner through this petition has prayed for the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to set aide and quash the orders dated 27‑1‑1983 (Annexure `Q') and 3‑7‑1984 and be further pleased to issue Mandatory Injunction ordering the respondent to resume his duty pending the disposal of petition."
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner was employed by the respondent‑company on 1‑4‑1967 in their Branch Office at Chittagong in the erstwhile East Pakistan as Medical Representative. However, his services were terminated by an order dated 27‑1‑1983.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of mala fides or. the part of the respondent his services were terminated. It seems that he filed Civil Suit No. 3478 of 1983 for a declaration that the termination of his services was illegal and void and he remained in service. The learned Civil Judge rejected the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. by his order dated 11‑2‑1984. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 21 of 1984 which was dismissed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge by his order dated 3‑7‑1984. After that the petitioner filed the present petition and prayed for the above relief.
4. We have invited the attention of Mr. A. Q. Malik to the case of M/s. Malik & Haq and another v. Muhammad Shamsul Islam reported in P L D 1961 S C 531 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the relationship between a Firm and its employee is that of master and servant and the employee cannot seek the relief of reinstatement even in case of wrongful dismissal, and the only remedy available is to sue for damages. In the present case, admittedly the respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The ratio of the above Supreme Court case is very much applicable. We, would therefore, dismiss the above petition but there would be no order as to costs. S.Q./N-124/K Petition dismissed.