Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: TILAT HUSSAIN VS Respondent: CHAIRMAN, PIA
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C. S.) 1
[Karachi High Court]
Before Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, C. J. and Muhammad Afzal Soomro, J
TILAT HUSSAIN and others
versus
CHAIRMAN, PIA and others
Constitutional Petitions Nos. D‑1587, 1588 of 1997, 801, 1420 and 1534 of 1999, decided on 2nd July, 2001.
(a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.2‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Objection raised by the respondent‑Corporation was that since the provision of S.2‑A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, was applicable to the employees of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, therefore, matter was to be decided by Service Tribunal ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Petitioners not having been issued appointment letters and not having served the respondent‑Corporation as its employees, would not fall within the category of civil servants as envisaged in S.2‑A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and they would be competent to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction‑of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution‑‑‑Constitutional petition was maintainable in circumstances.
Yousaf Ali v. Sher Malik and 3 others 1998 SCMR 1911 ref.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Duty of petitioner‑‑‑Necessary for" a party to establish the existence of a right in his favour which has been violated by act of commission or omission of a public functionary resulting in legal injury or loss to such person.
Malik Asad Ali and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1998 SC 161 and Sh. Liaquat Hussain and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and others PLD 1999 SC 504 ref.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Contractual employment‑‑‑Principle of master and servant‑‑‑Applicability‑‑‑Grievance of the petitioners was that after having successfully completed training with the Pakistan. International Airlines Corporation, the petitioners were denied employment in the Corporation‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Respondent‑Corporation was governed by the principle of master and servant and employee or a person, who had failed to secure employment, would have no right to claim induction in the service of the respondent‑Corporation even if refusal to employ or induct him in service was not strictly in accordance with the provisions of rules and/or regulations‑‑‑Where the employment was to be governed by the principle of master and servant and not in accordance with any statute or rules made thereunder, the petitioners did not have any fundamental or legal right to claim employment/induction in the service of respondent‑Corporation‑‑ Constitutional petition would not lie for providing relief on account of violating of terms and conditions of a contract‑‑‑Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.
Abdul Qayoom and 11 others v. Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh, Karachi and 3 others PLD 1998 Kar. 192; Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid‑e‑Azam International Airport, Karachi and others 1998 SCMR 2268; Nizamuddin and another v. Civil Aviation Authority and 2 others 1999 SCMR 467; Habib Bank Limited and others v. Syed Ziaul Hassan Kazmi 1998 SCMR 60; United Bank Limited and others v. Ahsan Akhtar and others 1998 SCMR 68; Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. and another 1994 SCMR 2232; Director, Social Welfare, N.‑W.F.P., Peshawar v. Sadullah Khan 1996 SCMR 1350; Wali Muhammad and others v. Sakhi Muhammad and others PLD 1974 SC 106; Abdul Haque Indhar and others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Forest, Fisheries and Livestock Department, Karachi and 3 others 2000 SCMR 907; Khiali Khan v. Haji Nazir and 4 others PLD 1997 SC 304; Syed Ali Shah v. Abdul Saghir Khan Sherwani and others PLD 1990 SC 504 and Muhammad Baran and others v. Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others PLD 1990 SC 691 ref.
(d) Master arid servant‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑‑Principle of‑‑‑Right of employee to continue in employment‑‑‑Wrongful decision of employer‑‑‑Remedy‑‑‑Where service is governed by the principle of master and servant or by a contract, the same does not confer a guaranteed right on the employee to continue in the employment and to seek reinstatement on being illegally dismissed or terminated‑‑‑On refusal of employer to provide employment as per terms of a contract of employment or service rules and regulations not having statutory force or sanction, an affected employee cannot approach a Court of law for seeking appointment even if he is refused employment illegally or in contravention of the service contract or non‑statutory rules/regulations‑‑‑Such person at the most can claim damages for illegal or wrongful decision refusing employment.
Abdul Majeed Pirzada for Petitioners.
Amir Malik for Respondent.
ORDER
SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, C.J.‑‑‑In the aforesaid Constitutional. Petitions, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:‑‑
C.Ps. Nos.D‑1587 and 1588 of 1997
It is, therefore, humbly prayed by the petitioners that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to accept this petition and declare that the impugned decisions, contained in letters dated 28‑3‑1997 are mala fide illegal, without lawful authority and consequently of no legal effect, and that the petitioners are entitled to be inducted in service of PIAC as 'Flight Stewards' in the Pay Group‑IV having successfully completed the requisite training and also entitled to be awarded certificate of training at the PIAC Training Centre pursuant to the letters of offer. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue direction against respondents directing them to induct the petitioners in service as 'Flight Stewards' in the Pay Group‑IV in terms of clause (c) of offer letters and be also pleased to grant such other better/further relief as may be deemed just and appropriate.
C.Ps. Nos.D‑801/99. 1420/99 and 1534/99
(I) That the petitioners be inducted in service of PIAC on the basis of merit and as an equal treatment.
(II) That the impugned orders dated 4‑2‑1999 (C.P. No.D‑801/99), 3rd July, 1998 (C.P. No.1420/99) 11‑2‑1999 (C.P. No.D‑1534/99) be declared as ultra vires of Constitution and without lawful authority, void and of no legal effect.
(III) That the appointments through contractors be declared as without lawful authority and violative of the guidelines of Supreme Court in Abdul Jabbar Memon's case.
(IV) That the respondents be directed to make recruitments to 400 new posts on the basis of merit and after proper advertisement in the national newspapers.
(V) That it be declared that the petitioners be given preference because they are fully trained and have been selected on merits on the basis of test, interview and in response to an advertisement.
(VI) That the cost of the petition be awarded to the petitioners.
(VII)That any other relief deemed fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case may also be granted.
The brief facts as submitted by the petitioners in their aforesaid Constitutional Petitions are that in response to the advertisements in the dailies 'JANG' and 'DAWN' dated 25‑7‑1995 for appointments in the establishment of respondent M/s. PIAC to various posts, the petitioners had applied for the posts of "Flight Stewards". In pursuance of their applications, they were called for tests and interviews in accordance with the rules and regulations of respondent M/s. PIAC and were finally selected as Flight Stweards alongwith other 130 candidates. The petitioners were declared successful in the tests and interviews held by the Board/Competent Authority and were sent for training for Cabin Emergency Duty at the training Centre at. Karachi which they also successfully undergone whereupon uniforms of Cabin Crew/Flight Stewards were provided to them and a passing out ceremony was arranged by the training centre. However, instead of being inducted in service, respondent M/s. PIAC by its letters dated 28‑3‑1997 informed the petitioners that it had been decided not to appoint them as Flight Stewards. Upon such intimation, the petitioners filed Constitutional Petitions before this Court as well as Lahore High Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Respondent M/s. PIAC made a statement before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, whereby the impugned notices/orders dated 28 3‑1997 were treated to have been withdrawn and respondent M/s. PIAC was permitted to take fresh action in accordance with the law. In pursuance of such statement, Show‑Cause Notices dated 3‑12‑1998 were issued to the petitioners, whereby they were intimated that the competent authority had decided not to appoint them as Flight Stewards and further that in case they felt aggrieved by the said decision, then they were required to submit explanations for not taking such a decision. They were also required to appear in person, if they so desired. The petitioners submitted their explanations against the decision "not to recruit them as Flight Stewards", but respondent M/s. PIAC vide letters/orders dated 4‑2‑1999 informed the petitioners that it was not possible to induct them in service as there were no vacancies of Flight Stewards. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above orders/decision of respondent M/s. PIAC and having no other alternate, adequate and efficacious forum for redress of their grievances, the petitioners approached this Court by way of the aforesaid Constitutional Petitions.
We have heard the arguments of M/s. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada and Amir Malik, the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent M/s. PIAC respectively, who had agreed that the aforesaid Constitutional Petitions may be disposed of finally at the stage of Katcha peshi.
Mr. Amir Malik vehemently objected to the maintainability of the aforesaid Constitutional Petitions on the'ground that the petitioners being civil servants were precluded from invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court in view of section 2‑A of the Service Tribunals Act and the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In support of his contention, referred us to several authorities of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court, wherein it has been categorically pronounced that the employees of corporations including M/s. PIAC have acquired the status of civil servants by the newly incorporated sections 2A in the Service Tribunals Act for the purpose of redress of their grievances relating to the terms and conditions of service and could only approach the Service Tribunal for redress of their such grievances.
Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada controverted the arguments of Mr. Amir Malik and submitted that the learned counsel for respondent M/s. PIAC in raising the aforesaid objection had completely lost sight of the fact that the petitioners were never provided employment by respondent M/s. PIAC and had never joined M/s. PIAC as its employees in pursuance of their applications, clearance of tests and interviews, completion of training and provision ‑of uniforms and, therefore, they did not fall within the definition of civil servants as envisaged in section 2A of the Service Tribunals Act. In support of his above contention, Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada placed reliance on the case of Yousaf Ali v. Sher Malik and 3 others (1998 SCMR 1911). 1n this case, the Supreme Court pronounced that where a person who applied for a post under the Government and was not recruited, he did not fall within the category of civil servant and as such bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution did not apply in his case. The Supreme Court further observed that where an aggrieved person had applied for appointment but did not. succeed, he could not be said to be a civil servant for the purpose of agitating the matter with regard to illegal appointment of another person and held that the Constitutional Petition filed by the aggrieved party against the illegal appointment of another person was maintainable before the High Court. In view of the above categorical pronouncement by the Supreme Court in the afore-cited case, the objection raised by Mr. Amir Malik is without any substance and is overruled. We hold that these Constitutional Petitions are maintainable as the petitioners not having been issued appointment letters and not having served respondent M/s. PIAC as its employees would not fall within the category of civil servants as envisaged in section 2‑A of the Service Tribunals Act and they would be competent to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The question whether they would be entitled to the reliefs sought by them is an absolutely different issue and would be dependent on the merits of these Constitutional Petitions.
Mr. Amir Malik then raised a further objection with regard to the maintainability of these Constitutional Petitions on the ground that the petitioners were not aggrieved parties as contemplated in Article 199 of the Constitution inasmuch as they had completely failed to establish the existence of any fundamental or legal right in their favour which was violated by any act of commission or omission of respondent M/s. PIAC and which ultimately resulted in causing legal injury or loss to the petitioners. In this connection, he further submitted that the petitioners in pursuance of advertisements calling for applications for appointments to the posts of Flight Stewards had submitted their applications and they were informed that they had been found suitable for the position of Trainee Flight Stewards in the Flight Service Department of respondent M/s. PIAC and were called upon to report for completion of employment formalities/collection of joining advice for training which did not confer on the petitioners right to be appointed as Flight Stewards and they could not claim the right to be appointed as Flight Stewards. In this regard, he drew our attention to the letters under the subject of Offer for employment in PIAC dated 14‑3‑1996 and submitted that a bare perusal thereof would be sufficient to support his contention that the case of the petitioners was in the process of consideration for appointments, which were to be made subject to the conditions contained in the aforesaid letters. He further submitted that on scrutiny of the applications and other material submitted by the petitioners, it was found that they did not qualify for appointments as Flight Stewards as they were not able to fulfil all the conditions enumerated in the aforesaid letters and accordingly, were duly informed of such decision vide letters dated 28‑3‑1997. He further submitted that these letters were ordered to be withdrawn by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeals Nos.1422‑‑1430 of 1997 and the petitioners were served with fresh letters informing them of the decision not to appoint them as Flight Stewards and also giving them the right to show cause as to why the said decision should not be maintained. Mr. Amir Malik further submitted that in view of the above 'submissions, it was established beyond any doubt that the petitioners had no guaranteed, fundamental or legal right in their favour with the result that the violation thereof by respondent M/s. PIAC and causing of legal injury or loss to the petitioners did not at all arise and it was sufficient to conclude that the aforesaid Constitutional Petitions were misconceived and not maintainable. In support of his above contention, Mr. Amir Malik placed reliance on the cases of (i) Malik Asad Ali and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1998 SC 161) and (ii) Sh. Liaquat Hussain and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and others (PLD 1999 SC 504).
In both the aforecited cases, the Supreme Court had discussed the issue with regard to the invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution and had come to the conclusion that it was necessary for a party to establish the existence of a right in his favour which had been violated by an act of commission or omission of a public functionary resulting in legal injury or loss to such person.
Mr. Amir Malik raised another ground with regard to the right of the petitioners to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and submitted that the appointments/induction of the petitioners in the service of respondent M/s. PIAC was to be governed by the service rules/regulations framed by respondent M/s. PIAC, which were not statutory rules and therefore the employment iii the establishment of respondent M/s. PIAC was to be governed by the principle of master and servant. He further submitted that the contents of the letters dated 14‑3‑1996 and 7‑8‑1996 were ample proof in support of the contention that the petitioners were to be appointed in the service of respondent M/s. PIAC in pursuance of a contract and during the course of their service would not have been entitled to‑any fundamental or legal safeguards except the guarantees or safeguards made available to the petitioners by the service rules and regulations of respondent M/s. PIAC and the principle of master and servant and submitted that it was a well -established principle that for the purpose of enforcement of contractual obligations, rights and duties, an aggrieved person could not invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and was required to approach the normal forum provided under the general law. In support of his above contention, he placed reliance on the following cases:‑‑
(1) Abdul Qayoom and 11 others v. Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary Sindh, Karachi and 3 others (PLD 1998 Karachi 192);
(2) Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid‑e -Azam International Airport, Karachi and others (1998 SCMR 2268); and
(3) Nizamuddin and another v. Civil Aviation Authority and 2 others (1999 SCMR 467).
In support of his contention that the employment of employees of a statutory corporation including that of respondent M/s. PIAC, which did not have statutory rules of service, was governed by the principle of master and servant, Mr. Amir Malik placed reliance on the following cases:‑‑
(1) Habib Bank Limited and others v. Syed Ziaul Hassan Kazmi (1998 SCMR 60); and
(2) United Bank Limited and others v. Ahsan Akhtar and others (1998 SCMR 68).
Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada on the other hand vehemently refuted the arguments advanced by Mr. Amir Malik and submitted that after having been informed of being considered for appointments vide letters dated 14‑3 1996, the petitioners had acquired a right of being inducted in the service of respondent M/s. PIAC subject to the condition that they had successfully completed the training to be imparted to them for working as Flight Stewards. He further submitted that the fact that all the petitioners had successfully completed the training of Flight Stewards would be borne out from the act of respondent M/s. PIAC in providing uniforms of Flight Stewards to all the petitioners inasmuch as if any of the petitioners had not successfully completed the training programme; then the question of providing uniforms would not have arisen. He further submitted that in such circumstances, the petitioners were justified in presuming that they had acquired a right to be appointed/inducted in the service of respondent M/s. PIAC as Flight Stewards and this was the vested or the legal right which they had acquired and which was violated by respondent M/s. PIAC by their subsequent letters dated 28‑3‑1997 and 4‑2‑1999.
In order to resolve the controversy, it will be appropriate to reproduce the contents of the letters dated 14‑3‑1996 in extenso which are as under:‑‑
"PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION EMPLOYMENT SECTION
65‑1/B, MUHAMMAD ALI HOUSING SOCIETY, KARACHI
EMP:REC:J.0. 3078/95
14 March, 1996.
Mr. Talat Husain.
Subject: OFFER FOR EMPLOYMENT IN PIAC
Dear Sir/Madam,
1. Reference your application requesting for employment in PIAC as Flight Steward. Pay Group IV. We are pleased to inform you that on scrutiny of your application you have been considered for appointment. However your employment will be subject to the following conditions:‑‑
Assessment by selection board for suitability
Medical fitness/ physical specification
Security clearance/police verification from appropriate authority.
Release certificate from previous employer if any.
Your service will be governed under the terms and conditions as laid down in the PIAC Admin Manual/PIAC Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985 and Orders/Instructions issued by the Management from time to time.
Your appointment is liable to be terminated if any certificate submitted or produced by you is found to be false at any stage.
Your service will be liable to termination, if at any stage any adverse report or information is received about your antecedents, conduct or behaviour from your former employer, police department or any other agency/authority.
2. You are advised to report to Manager Employment, PIAC on the above address on 19th March, 1996 at 10‑00 hours.
3. Please bring along original testimonials, NIC Card, Domicile Certificate. TA/DA not admissible.
For Yours faithfully
PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION
(Sd.)
BASIT ALI KHAN, MANAGER EMPLOYMENT."
A bare perusal of the contents of the aforesaid letters would reveal that it was not an order of employment of the petitioners but contained an offer to the petitioners for their employment in the establishment of respondent M/s. PIAC subject to the conditions mentioned therein. This is further proved by letters dated 7‑8‑1996 issued to the petitioners advising them to report to the Manager Training, Flight Service, PIA Head Office for making arrangement for their training in PIA Training Centre. Karachi Airport. It will also be appropriate to reproduce the contents of the aforesaid letters in extenso which are as under:‑‑
"No. EMP PLC 05.30.96
Date: 7th August, 1996
Mr. Tilat Hussain
S/o Faiz Muhammad Piaz (Late)
U.T. No.2781.
SUBJECT: TRAINING ADVICE
TRAINEE FLIGHT STEWARD
You are directed to report to Manager Training, Flight Service, PIA Head Office, Karachi Airport immediately for making arrangements for your training in PIA Training Centre, Karachi Airport.
(Sd. )
SYED MOZAFFAR HUSSAIN,
ASSTT. MANAGER EMPLOYMENT.
cc. Chief Instructor,
Flight Service,
PIA Training Centre,
Karachi Airport.
cc. Manager (Training and Development),
Flight Service Department,
PIA Head Office, Karachi Airport.5
The petitioners have not brought on record any material which could establish that all of them had successfully completed their training as Flight Stewards or that all of them were provided with uniforms of Flight Stewards after completion of training which fact, according to Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada was sufficient to establish the factum of successful completion of training by all the petitioners. It will not be out of place to mention there that Mr. Amir Malik had vehemently controverted the claim that uniforms were provided to all the petitioners. In view of the rebuttal of the claim of the petitioners of successful completion of training by all of them and provision of uniforms to them, the question would require inquiry and investigation which will not be possible merely on the basis of the documents/material on record. Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada in support of his above contention placed reliance on the cases of.
(1) Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. and another (1994 SCMR 2232);
(2) Director, Social Welfare, N.‑W.F.P. Peshawar v. Sadullah Khan (1996 SCMR 1350);
(3) Judgment of the Supreme Court in CPLA No.1573/2000 (PIAC v. Aliya Hashmi); and
(4) Judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos.330‑‑337 and 436 of 1999 (Pakistan International Airlines (PIAC) through its Chairman and others v. Nasir Jamal Malik and others).
We have considered the respective arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with regard to the existence of a fundamental or legal right in favour of the petitioners, violation thereof by the acts of commission or omission of respondent M/s. PIAC and the resultant legal injury or loss, if any, to the petitioners and we are of the opinion that in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the petitioners have failed to establish the existence of fundamental or legal right to claim appointments/induction as Flight Stewards in the establishment of respondent M/s. PIAC on the basis of the aforesaid letters dated 14‑3‑1996 and 7‑8‑1996 inasmuch as the contents of the aforesaid letters clearly reveal that the petitioners were to be appointed/inducted in the service of respondent M/s. PIAC on the basis of agreement or contract of employment in accordance with the…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.