Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 1992 PLC 280
Court / Jurisdiction: KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Parties: ANISA REHMAN vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION KARACHI
This judicial decision was delivered by the KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH. The matter involves proceedings between ANISA REHMAN and PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION KARACHI, officially reported as 1992 PLC 280. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
1992 P L C 280
1992 P L C 280
[Karachi High Court]
Before Saeed-uz-zaman Siddiqui, CJ. and Abdul Rahim Kazi, J
Mrs. ANISA REHMAN
versus
PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION, KARACHI and another.
Constitutional Petition No. D-1103 of 1991, decided on 28th November, 1991.
(a) Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act (XIX of 1956)-
----Ss. 29, 30 & 31---Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Employee of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation-- Reversion---Relationship of employer and employee whether governed by the statutory rules or the law of Master and Servant---Provision of S. 31, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956, empowers the establishment to frame Regulations with prior sanction of the Federal Government and Regulations thus framed would be subjected to publication, which then would be laid before National Assembly---Laying of the Regulations before National Assembly, though not a prerequisite for giving effective force to the Regulations, yet publication of same was a statutory requirement---Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985, being not subjected to publication could not be deemed to have no statutory force---Statutory Rules being in the field, employees of Corporation could not invoke Constitutional jurisdiction nor could the High Court issue a direction 'declaring order of reversion of employee as without lawful authority and of no legal effect---In absence of statutory requirements having been complied with, the Rules/Regulations framed under Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956, would not attain status of statutory rules and employees would be governed by the law of Master and Servant.
Muhammad Yousuf Shah v. PIAC PLDe 1981 SC 224; A. George v. P.I.A.C. PLD 1971 Lah. 748 and Sindh Road Transport Corporation v. Muhammad Ali Khokhar 1990 SCMR 1404 rel.
(b) Master and Servant---
---- In absence of statutory rules, employees of an establishment would be governed by the law of Master and Servant.
M.L. Shahani for Petitioner.
Mahmood Alam and Naimur Rehman Standing Counsel for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 26th November, 1991.
JUDGMENT
ABDUL RAHIM QAZI, J.---Briefly the facts of the present petition are that the petitioner being MA. in International Relations and having some past experience applied for a suitable job in the establishment of respondent No. 1 anti was appointed as Public Relations Officer in Pay Group-VI vide letter dated 19-11-1989. Since the petitioner felt that she was entitled to higher post, she made such representation to the Chairman of the respondent No. 1, who after interviewing her ordered the modification on her appointment to Pay Group-VII. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have been transferred to Marketing Department and also claims to have completed a course of respondent No. 1 and was lastly working as Assistant Manager Sales Department in Pay Group-VII when by a letter dated 6-8-1991, the petitioner was informed that a Committee was appointed to review the cases of irregular appointments and by this letter she was reverted back to Pay Group-VI. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed this petition with the following reliefs;
"In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order, dated 6th August, 1991 (Annexure `J') and declare the same to be without any lawful authority and of no legal effect, further it may be declared that the petitioner ever since her appointment is in Grade VII, continues to be an employee in Pay Group-VII as if she has never been reverted to Pay Group-VI vide impugned order, dated 6th August, 1991 and is entitled to all consequential relief including pay and allowance difference and seniority in her original pay scale.
Award cost against the respondent No. 1.
We have called for comments from respondent No. 1, who have filed the comments wherein it is stated that the petitioner did not possess the qualifications as required even for the appointment in Pay Group-VI; and that she did not produce her degree of MA. although she had undertaken on 7-12-1989 to do so within three months. It is further stated in the comments that the petitioner was appointed in Pay Group-VII on account of certain pressure brought on the then Chairman of respondent No. 1.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. At the very outset Mr. Mahmood Alam for respondent No. 1 has submitted that law of Master and Servant governs the employees of the respondent No. 1 as there are no statutory rules governing their employment.
Mr. M.L. Shahani, learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the above, referred us to the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956 wherein section 31 provides as under: .
"31. Rules and regulations to be laid before the Legislature--All rules and regulations made under this Act shall be published in the official Gazette, and shall come into force upon such publication and shall be laid thereafter as soon as may be before the National Assembly."
He has further submitted that under the said provision of the P.IA.C. Act, Service Regulations were framed in the year 1985 titled as Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985. He has submitted that these Regulations having been framed under the said section 31 of the P.IA.C. Act have the force of statutory rules and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the Constitutional guarantees in regard to her employment; and that law of Master and Servant will not govern the relationship.
We have given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. In the first instance the above-said section 31 of the P.IA.C. Act empowers the Board to frame the Regulations with the prior sanction of the Federal Government but it has not been shown if these Regulations have been published in the Gazette. The provisions of section 31 provide that such Regulations shall be subjected to publication which then shall be laid thereafter before the National Assembly as soon as possible. From the A above, it may be observed that laying of the said Regulations before the National Assembly is not a prerequisite for giving the effective force to the said Regulations but publication is a statutory requirement. Since these Regulations admittedly are not subjected to publication the said Regulations cannot be said to have any statutory force. Reliance may be placed on the case of Muhammad Yousuf Shah v. PIAC (PLD 1981 SC 224) wherein while dealing with the case of an employee of the respondent No. 1 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the case was not covered under any statutory rules or Regulations and thus law of Master and Servant is applicable. Similarly in the case of A. George v. P.IA.C. (PLD 1971 Lahore 748) a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court has held that though the respondent No. 1 is a statutory body and amenable to various controls by Central Government yet it is not a branch of the Government and employee of such Corporation is not a servant of State and, therefore, not entitled to guarantees and safeguards provided to said servant under the Constitution of Pakistan; and that the relationship of the Corporation and the respondents is purely that of Master and Servant under general law. It is further observed in the above-cited case that the terms and conditions of the service of employee prescribed by Corporation in the form of service code do not have the force of statutory rules made by the Central Government under section 29 of the P.IA.C. Act, 1956 or Regulations made under section 30 of the Act. Similarly, in the case of Sindh Road Transport Corporation v. Muhammad Ali Khokhar (1990 SCMR 1404) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there being no statutory rules in the field, the employee could not invoke Constitutional jurisdiction and the High Court could not have issued a writ declaring the order of termination of his service as without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
In view of the above discussion it can safely be concluded that in the absence of any statutory rules the terms and conditions of the service of an employee of a Corporation are to be governed by the law of Master and Servant and such employee would not be entitled to any Constitutional B guarantees nor can a writ be issued in such cases. We have already observed above that the Service Regulations referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not the statutory rules as the statutory requirements provided under sections 29 and 30 of the Act have not been complied with.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that there is no force in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
AA./A-1129/K Petition dismissed.