Master and Servant

Where conditions of service of an employee of even a statutory body are not regulated by statutory rules and are governed under the terms of a contract or the rules/instructions/regulations for internal use, the relationship of the employee with such instrumentality is governed by the principle of master and servant unless the services are protected in terms of the provisions contained in labour laws.

Where there are no statutory rules governing the terms and conditions of its employees the status of such employees with the employer would become that of master and servant.

Under the labour laws, there is no provision permitting the employer to terminate the services of the worker verbally without a written order

Termination of service by a verbal order is alien to the labour law.

Proposal to establish special tribunals/courts to expeditiously decide cases of employees under the relationship of master and servant

According to the master's mindset, the employee can be dismissed or terminated outrightly with good, bad, or no reason at all, without providing any opportunity of fair hearing on the justification of having no statutory rules to regulate such employment

On account of no expeditious remedy or forum to challenge the adverse actions, such employees have to file civil suits and wait for a number of years for their decision, but if they are allowed a fast-track remedy under some legislation ensuring that some lawful justification for termination of contracts of employment is provided, and if such legislation also creates some rights and obligations for employers and employees with the formation of special courts or tribunals, then their cases will also be decided at a speedy pace, just as the cases of civil servants and workman/workers are decided by the Service Tribunal, NIRC, and labour courts within lesser time than the time normally consumed in civil courts

If any such tribunal or special court is constituted under some special law, it will not only ensure checks and balances but ardently and fervently ease and alleviate the sufferings of the aforesaid category of employees who presently have to go through the miseries and turmoil of the rigors and rigidities of procedure, and the backlog of cases, for a long time

It is expedient and pragmatic to plan some legislation and establish a special tribunal/court under a special law to approach the cases of employees under the relationship of master and servant, which would not only uphold the basic human values which are vital to our social and economic lives but would virtually be a milestone by the government in safeguarding the fundamental rights of an extremely large category of employees who are deprived of expeditious access to justice as a consequence of no backing of statutory rules of service in various statutory organizations, corporations, autonomous bodies and, in particular, the persons employed in private, industrial and commercial establishments who are excluded from the definition of worker or workman under the labour laws due to the nature of their job.

Relationship of master and servant cannot be construed as so sagacious that the master i.e. the management of a statutory corporation or the corporation and/or company under the control of government having no statutory rules of service or the private sector may exercise the powers at their own aspiration and discretion in contravention or infringement of fundamental rights envisioned under the Constitution

Therefore, in all fairness, even under the relationship of master and servant, fundamental rights should be respected and followed, as the same are an integral part of due process.

Relationship of master and servant cannot be construed as so sagacious that the master i.e. the management of a statutory corporation or the corporation and/or company under the control of government having no statutory rules of service or the private sector may exercise the powers at their own aspiration and discretion in contravention or infringement of fundamental rights envisioned under the Constitution

Therefore, in all fairness, even under the relationship of master and servant, fundamental rights should be respected and followed, as the same are an integral part of due process.

Proposal to establish special tribunals/courts to expeditiously decide cases of employees under the relationship of master and servant

According to the master's mindset, the employee can be dismissed or terminated outrightly with good, bad, or no reason at all, without providing any opportunity of fair hearing on the justification of having no statutory rules to regulate such employment

On account of no expeditious remedy or forum to challenge the adverse actions, such employees have to file civil suits and wait for a number of years for their decision, but if they are allowed a fast-track remedy under some legislation ensuring that some lawful justification for termination of contracts of employment is provided, and if such legislation also creates some rights and obligations for employers and employees with the formation of special courts or tribunals, then their cases will also be decided at a speedy pace, just as the cases of civil servants and workman/workers are decided by the Service Tribunal, NIRC, and labour courts within lesser time than the time normally consumed in civil courts

If any such tribunal or special court is constituted under some special law, it will not only ensure checks and balances but ardently and fervently ease and alleviate the sufferings of the aforesaid category of employees who presently have to go through the miseries and turmoil of the rigors and rigidities of procedure, and the backlog of cases, for a long time

It is expedient and pragmatic to plan some legislation and establish a special tribunal/court under a special law to approach the cases of employees under the relationship of master and servant, which would not only uphold the basic human values which are vital to our social and economic lives but would virtually be a milestone by the government in safeguarding the fundamental rights of an extremely large category of employees who are deprived of expeditious access to justice as a consequence of no backing of statutory rules of service in various statutory organizations, corporations, autonomous bodies and, in particular, the persons employed in private, industrial and commercial establishments who are excluded from the definition of worker or workman under the labour laws due to the nature of their job.

Where employment is on contract, there is a relationship of master and servant and in such like cases the constitutional petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable.

Long service is no ground for regularization and it has to be supported by legislation and is not an automatically accruing right.

Petitioner sought regularization in wake of grant of benefit of regularization to certain persons appointed with the petitioner

Held, that as the present matter related to the policy of the official respondents, therefore, the High Court could interfere into it

It is not in the domain of the Courts to embark upon an inquiry as to whether a particular policy is wise and acceptable or whether better policy could be drafted

Court can only interfere if the policy framed is absolutely capricious and non-informed by reasons or totally arbitrary, offending the basic requirement of the Constitution

It was for the respondents to decide how and in what manner the reservations should be made and such a policy decision normally would not be open to challenge subject to its passing the test of reasonableness

Even otherwise, the petitioner had neither made party to this petition the named persons (who were regularized) nor any document, in that regard had been brought on record by her, hence it could not be said that the respondents had treated him indifferently or given discriminatory treatment to him

As the Petitioner was a daily wager employee and was governed by the principle of master and servant, therefore, he did not have any vested right to seek extension of the contract/regularization as a matter of right rather it was the prerogative of the competent authority either to dispense with services of such employee or continue with the same by extending the contract or regularizing the services as per the policy

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Relevant clause of appointment letter, stipulated that the offer of appointment was only for a period of 89 days which may be terminable without assigning any reason or might be extended subject to satisfactory performance

Yet another clause revealed that this daily wages employment neither conferred any right of permanent job nor any privilege of regular appointment would be claimed in future whereas another significant clause revealed that the employment could be treated as cancelled in case of non-fulfilment of the prescribed accessories and not appearing for duty on time

Record revealed that the period of work was extended from time to time and ultimately it was discontinued on 13.03.2010 in terms of said clause, however, on application of the petitioner, he was re-appointed on 17.12.2012 under the same terms and conditions of initial appointment letter which too was discontinued on 17.02.2016

Petitioner who, at the time of joining, had accepted all the terms and conditions of his daily wages employment, could not resile from the same at a belated stage

Moreover, it was nowhere mentioned in the appointment letter that it was a job of permanent nature or the same was likely to be permanent in future

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

In a private employment employee could not conceive to be an employee of a private entity forever and any interference would amount to interference of his/her fundamental right

Termination even beyond the terms of the employment, at the most would lead to a claim of damages

High Court declined to grant relief of injunction to plaintiffs, as they were in the employment of an entity which created relationship of master and servant

One of the plaintiffs was on contract employment having specific terms which also allowed termination of service on one month's notice or in lieu of a salary

Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was employee of Oil and Gas Development Corporation and his service was terminated after departmental proceedings

Validity

Constitutional petition was maintainable where respondent / authority had violated any provision of law or statutory rules

Employees, who were governed by statutory rules, could avail remedy of filing Constitutional petition before High Court

Principle of "master and servant" was applicable to the employees whose services were not governed by any statutory rules

Petitioner was employee of a company, which was owned by the Government, and in absence of violation of law or any statutory rule, he could not press into service Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court in order to seek relief with respect to his employment

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Constitutional petition filed by an employee of Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. ('USCP') with respect to his terms and conditions of service

Maintainability

Petitioners were employees who were dismissed from service by the USCP in wake of their conviction by the Accountability Court

Petitioners' acquittal by the Appellate/High Court had caused a dispute between the USCP and them qua their service as the USCP refused to permit the petitioners to join their duties

Petitioners invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court contending that they were not dismissed from service in accordance with or by resorting to the procedure prescribed in the said Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. Service Rules, 1981 but solely due to their conviction by the Accountability Court

Validity

Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. Service Rules, 1981, had not been made by the Federal Government but by the Board of Directors of USCP pursuant to the provisions of its Memorandum and Articles of Association

Said rules had not been made in exercise of any statutory powers and the same contained relevant chapter titled "Efficiency and Discipline Rules" providing an elaborate mechanism for conducting disciplinary proceedings against employees of the USCP

Since the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. Services Rules, 1981, were non-statutory in nature, the relationship between USCP and the petitioners was governed by the principle of 'master and servant' and therefore, the petitions filed by the petitioners were not maintainable

Constitutional petitions were dismissed, in circumstances.

Documentary evidence (Last Pay Certificate and Initial Pay Slip) showed basic pay of appellant as Rs. 8070/- , however during his cross-examination before the Tribunal below, he inadvertently mentioned his basic salary as Rs. 7,605

Held, that if a person had or had been bestowed some legal right and he omitted to claim such legal right through oral assertion but the best documentary evidence of the case was found in his favour then the documentary evidence should be given credence

In the present case the inadvertent statement of the appellant qua his basic pay had no force and could not be used to deprive him of his valuable rights

Supreme Court directed the respondent-department to recalculate the monthly pension and the amount of outstanding house building advance of the appellant in the light of his basic salary mentioned in the documentary evidence i.e. Rs. 8070/- and pay the difference to the appellant within a period of one month

Appeal was allowed.

In absence of any statutory service rules, relationship between employer and its employees is that of Master and Servant.

Contention of the petitioners (employees) was that employers (a school) had unlawfully abolished the facility of free of cost education to their children

Held, that the petitioners were employees of the school, which admittedly, had no statutory rules

Neither the services of the petitioners were regulated by a statute nor any of its provision had been violated by the employers while dealing with them

Case of the petitioners and employers was one of "master" and "servant", therefore, they could not invoke constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court

Issue was related to fiscal matter and due to some financial constraint, the relief was not extended to the petitioners by the employers

High Court could not pass any order in constitutional jurisdiction which was practically not executable

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Absent the statutory underpinning, the rule of master and servant would govern the employment contract of an employee.

Daily wager or contract employee is precluded to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court with regard to matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, as the relationship inter se the employee and department shall always be deemed to be as of "master and servant"

In case of breach of any of the terms and conditions of contract or any other issue ensuing therefrom the grouse can only be remedied by filing a suit for damages.

Plaintiff was appointed by the company when it acquired corporate status, and their relationship was governed by the master and servant rule

Plaintiff had relied on the Human Resource Manual, which suggested that termination could be done without assigning any reason or as a retrenchment measure, provided a notice of three months or payment in lieu thereof was given

Defendant had offered final settlement to the plaintiff after completing the required formalities

Employee could not force his employer to continue his services as it would disrupt the entire internal mechanism and workings of the corporate sector

Therefore, the suit could, at most, be considered a claim for the recovery of damages due to the alleged unlawful termination and nothing more.

Relationship of master and servant and remedies available to a servant in case of dismissal from employment, explained.

In the present case, the private bank was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution nor it was a case of violation or contravention of any statutory rules of service which could be agitated in the High Court in its writ jurisdiction

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed ad leave was refused.

Relationship of master and servant implies a contractual relation in which one party agrees to be under the control of other and the servant is bound to obey orders not only as to the work that he would execute but also as to the details of the work and the manner of its execution and in return, the master has to pay wages

Relationship between master and servant is the existence of right in the master to supervise and control the work done by the servant not only in the matter of directing what work the servant is to do but also the manner in which he shall do his work.

Where employment rules are non-statutory in nature, the relationship of employer and employee is governed by the principle of master and servant.

Relationship of master and servant and remedies available to a servant in case of dismissal from employment, explained.

Where employment rules are non-statutory in nature, the relationship of employer and employee is governed by the principle of master and servant.

Where a service grievance was agitated by person/employee, who was not governed by statutory rules of service, such employee could not invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court for redressal of his grievance

Where case related to a matter wherein statutory rules had not been framed, or non-statutory rules were applicable to the employee, or statutory rules had neither been violated nor been sought to be enforced, then the person seeking a remedy had to show that some statutory provision had been invoked by respondents or violated, or needed to be enforced, which was a condition precedent for invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

If an employee with non-statutory rules, was proceeded against under some statutory provision of law, he might also invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Such remedy might not be available if some other remedy provided under the law was available to him for redressal of his grievance.

Where employment is on contract, there is a relationship of Master and Servant and in such like cases constitutional petition under Art.199 of the Constitution is not maintainable.

Plaintiff was employee of defendant Bank, who sought his reinstatement in the service and had also sought recovery of damages

Validity

Servant of private bank could not be forced upon his master

Master was always entitled to say that he was prepared to pay damages for breach of contract of service but would not accept services of servant

Contract of personal service could not be enforced under the provisions of S.21(b) of Specific Relief Act, 1877, whereas breach of contract could give rise to only two reliefs, i.e. damages or specific performance

If specific performance was barred under the law, only relief available was damages

When a master in breach of his contract refused to employ servant, only right that survived to employee was right to damages and nothing else

No relief or decree could be passed against unwilling master

Plaintiff had only one remedy i.e. to sue for damages / money

High Court declined to grant interim injunction in favour of plaintiff as no prima facie case was made out by plaintiff and no irreparable loss would be caused to him if injunction application was denied, balance of convenience also did not lie in favor of plaintiff

Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners contended that they were well qualified and having requisite experience after the initial appointment; that joining fresh process with other candidates was unfair; that employment was the source of livelihood and the right of livelihood was an undeniable right to a person; that they served the respondent/department for a long period and deserved to be given a fair chance of regularization in the given situation

Counsel of authorities contended that High Court lacked jurisdiction to revive/amend/alter contracts; that there was no vested right to seek regularization for employees hired on a contractual basis unless there was/is a legal and statutory basis for the same; that contractual employees had no automatic right to be regularized unless specifically provided for in law; and that the relationship of contractual employees was governed by principles of master and servant

Held, that petitioners had initially been appointed openly/transparently through the prescribed competitive process, hence, fulfilled the precondition for appointment as such

Petitioners' status as contract employees had ended once Finance Department of the Provincial Government had sanctioned the regular posts to run the affairs of respondent/department across the Province

Petitioners refereed to the summary floated by the respondents to the Competent Authority with the proposal that the services of the petitioners might be shifted from the Secretariat side to Field side so that the contractual staff of internal audit might be regularized

Excerpt of the minutes of the meetings of the Provincial Cabinet was perused which verified the said proposal

Constitutional petition was allowed and respondent/authority was directed to regularize the services of the petitioners accordingly.

Plaintiff, having served for about five years, filed suit seeking declaration that failure of the Master (CAA) in giving him extension till the completion of project was against the law

Master (CAA) contended that the suit of the plaintiff (Servant) was not maintainable, not having a cause of action, as the applicable relationship between the parties was that of master and servant

Validity

Admittedly, plaintiff was initially appointed on contract basis for a period of one year (extendable) subject to a clause of the letter of appointment

Said letter of appointment provided that the appointment during the period of contract would be liable to termination on thirty day's notice on either side or immediate termination on payment of basic pay in lieu thereof, without assigning any reason whatsoever

Another term of said letter of appointment was that if the terms and conditions of the appointment were acceptable to plaintiff, he should send written confirmation by registered post to the Master, whereafter the plaintiff submitted his letter of acceptance of appointment by confirming the acceptance of offer of appointment; hence, it was an admitted position that the appointment of the plaintiff was on contract basis, the terms whereof were acknowledged and accepted by him

Appointment in question was for a period of one year or for extended period on the option of the appointing authority and the same did not contain any provision for continuation/extension of the plaintiff' appointment till the completion of the project for which he was appointed

Terms and conditions enunciated in the appointment letter, showed that the appointment/contract was revocable

Master was within its right to dispense with the service of the servant after the expiry of his contract or during the period of contract on thirty days' notice or immediate termination on payment of basic pay in lieu thereof, without assigning any reason whatsoever

After accepting the terms and conditions of his appointment, the servant was precluded under the law to claim extension of his contractual service till the completion of project and the law did not recognize any such right of plaintiff (contract employee)

Declaration sought by the servant for extension of service could not be granted as the suit was barred under S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877

Plaint was rejected under O.VII, R.11(d), C.P.C. and suit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Employee of a company / organization owned by government, in absence of violation of law or any statutory rule, could not press into service Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court in order to seek relief with respect to his employment

Transfer order was passed by respondent authority which was a strategic organization

Petitioner failed to establish on record any element of mala fide on the part of respondent authority while passing posting order in question

Transfer of order was not illegal as one petitioner was found violating discipline of strategic organization

High Court declined to interfere in transfer order as the same was made in public interest

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Documentary evidence (Last Pay Certificate and Initial Pay Slip) showed basic pay of appellant as Rs. 8070/- , however during his cross-examination before the Tribunal below, he inadvertently mentioned his basic salary as Rs. 7,605

Held, that if a person had or had been bestowed some legal right and he omitted to claim such legal right through oral assertion but the best documentary evidence of the case was found in his favour then the documentary evidence should be given credence

In the present case the inadvertent statement of the appellant qua his basic pay had no force and could not be used to deprive him of his valuable rights

Supreme Court directed the respondent-department to recalculate the monthly pension and the amount of outstanding house building advance of the appellant in the light of his basic salary mentioned in the documentary evidence i.e. Rs. 8070/- and pay the difference to the appellant within a period of one month

Appeal was allowed.

Admittedly, the respondents were contract employees and their relationship was governed by the principle of 'master and servant'

Regularization of the respondents was not part of the terms and conditions of their service because for that purpose statutory rules were required and admittedly there were no statutory rules for Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd.

Appeals were allowed.

Such employees had no vested right to claim regularization.

Contractual employees had no automatic right to be regularized unless the same had specifically been provided for in law.

Principle of master and servant shall only not apply if some statute or statutory rules place fetters upon the terms of the contract between the parties

Where a corporation is set up by a statute but the government does not reserve to itself the power to regulate conditions of service and the statute itself does not prescribe any conditions or if otherwise no statutory prescription is forthcoming and it is the corporation or its management which is given the power to frame rules and regulations to govern the terms of service of its employees, the employee is left with no protection under the statute itself and the corporation has complete control over its employees, since its regulatory power is not fettered by any statutory provision.

Appellant assailed order passed by Single Judge of High Court whereby writ petition filed by respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be re-instated in service

Validity

Respondent whose terms and conditions were governed by Bank (employer) Staff Service Rules and who had been dismissed from service under said Rules could not have invoked the remedy afforded by Art.199 of the Constitution, since his relationship with the appellant was governed by the rule of master and servant

Appellant not being a person within the contemplation of Art.199, no writ could have been issued to it

Order passed by Single Judge could not be allowed to remain in field

Appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

Employee in the present case, could only seek damages through the Civil Court against arbitrary dismissal, since his relationship with his employer was governed by the principle of "master and servant".

Employment disputes in such relationship are not amenable to jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution

When such relationship exists between an employer and employee then in case of termination the latter cannot claim a right to be reinstated but is entitled to ask for damages, if he/she is able to establish his wrongful removal.

Contractual employees had no automatic right to be regularized unless the same had specifically been provided for in law.

Contract employee, whose period of contract employment expired by afflux of time, carried no vested right to remain in employment of the employer and the Courts could not force the employer to reinstate or extend the contract of such employee.

Plea on behalf of company that suit filed by the employee before the civil court was not maintainable for the reason that the company was not a statutory corporation nor any statutory rules of service were applicable to its employees rather the principle of 'master and servant' applied to them and a declaratory suit could not have been filed; that there were concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court where the employee had been non suited for the reason that his suit was not maintainable

Validity

Plea raised by the company regarding rules applicable to its employees had not been elaborately considered by the High Court in the impugned order and it had gone on to consider the law as laid down in the ESTACODE which apparently was not applicable to the present case for that the employee was not a civil servant

High Court has also not considered that there were concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below and what need was felt by the High Court to interfere with such concurrent findings had not been addressed in the impugned order

Consequently appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside and the matter was remanded to the High Court to decide the same afresh, in accordance with law.

Contract employee, whose period of contract employment expired by afflux of time, carried no vested right to remain in employment of the employer and the Courts could not force the employer to reinstate or extend the contract of such employee.

Employee could not invoke the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal and only remedy for her was a civil suit before Civil Court

Disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner and she had been dismissed from service

Disciplinary matters did fall within the expression "terms and conditions of service"

Service rules of employee were non-statutory which could not be thrashed out in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Contractual terms and conditions of service of employee were not enforceable through constitutional petition

Relationship of master and servant did exist between the employee and Employer Authority in the present case

Disciplinary proceedings had not been initiated against the petitioner under any statutory rules of service

No vested right of employee had been infringed in the present case

Employer-Authority had prerogative to place its employees in accordance with its service rules and regulations

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Party could claim compensation in the shape of left over salary of the unexpired period on account of breach of contract

Termination clauses were generally provided in the contract to terminate the services when an employee was no longer wished to continue

If terms of termination was a breach of contract then the cause to claim compensation would trigger for the employee or the employer as the case might be

Contract between the parties was for three years therefore the employee could not seek reinstatement

Master and servant could agree to any reasonable time and that wisdom could not be challenged

Compensation/damages could be claimed independently by proving breach of contract by either party

Employee should have made efforts to minimize the damages and obtained alternate employment

Nothing was on record that employee had made efforts to obtain an employment elsewhere and he had monetarily suffered on account of termination despite his efforts

Parties had agreed that contract could be terminated by giving thirty days' notice therefore, there was no breach of terms of contract

If party had no justified reason for termination of contract then cause would be available to mobilize S.73 of Contract Act, 1872

Damages for breach of contract would depend on establishing such losses

Availability of thirty days' period was only for terminating the relationship and it did not mean that damages or compensation could not be claimed, as it was not a breach of term of contract

Plaintiff-employee had failed to establish damages sustained by him

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Terms and conditions of employees of (Pakistan International Airlines Company) were not governed by any statutory rules and there was relationship of 'Master and Servant' between the parties

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could not be invoked in the matter, in circumstances

Expression 'terms and conditions' did include transfer and posting of employees

Employer had not violated any law while making transfer and posting of the employees

Grievance of the petitioners could not be enforced through constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in limine accordingly.

Department filed application for rejection of plaint which was dismissed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court accepted the same

Validity

Defendant-establishment had no statutory Rules of service which could have been invoked for redressal of grievance by filing constitutional petition

Relationship of master and servant existed between the parties

Employee in the present case could only file a suit for declaration for alleviation and extenuating his grievances

Trial Court had rightly observed that employee had also claimed damages and matter could not be decided without adducing evidence

Promotion could not be claimed as vested right but same was to be granted on fulfillment and meeting the eligibility criteria provided under promotion policy of the management

Eligibility and fitness were two different attributes and characteristics which could be decided only by the departmental promotion committee

Nothing was on record that case of employee was sent for consideration by the departmental promotion committee and same was turned down

Employee should have been afforded fair opportunity to produce required evidence in the Trial Court to justify his claim of damages

Trial Court had not committed any illegality while dismissing the application for rejection of plaint

Impugned order passed by the Revisional Court was set aside in circumstances.

Plaintiff filed suit against his termination; claimed that notwithstanding termination, he continued to perform his duties and attended training workshops and that he was approached by an officer of the employer company for re-employment and therefore, by such conduct the letter of termination stood withdrawn

Validity

Relationship between plaintiff and defendant was governed by the rule of master and servant, as the defendant was a private organization

Terms and conditions of plaintiff's service provided that his service was subject to termination at any time after confirmation, subject to six weeks' notice or on payment of six weeks' salary in lieu of notice period

Defendant had acted strictly in accordance with the terms of employment, which were admitted

Plaintiff could not plead against such terms and conditions

Employee in a private organization could not be imposed or thrusted upon his employer

Master could always refuse to continue with employment of any of his employees, could come forward to pay compensation for breach of contract of service and could always say that the employee would not be re-engaged in service

Contract for personal services could not be specifically enforced in terms of S.21(b) of Specific Relief Act, 1877

Breach of contract of service gave rise to only two reliefs i.e. specific performance and damages and where the specific performance was barred in law then the only relief available was damages

Purported offer to re-engage could not be construed as to giving an employment to plaintiff

No relief of injunction could be granted to the plaintiff as he had failed to make out any prima facie case for indulgence, whereas, neither balance of convenience was in his favour nor any irreparable loss would be caused to him as adequate compensation as agreed by him

Application for grant of interim injunction was dismissed.

Master can always refuse to continue with the employment of any of his employees and may come forward to pay compensation for breach of contract of services and can say that the employee would not be re-engaged in service.