Rana MUHAMMAD KHALIL vs REGIONAL AUDIT CHIEF and others
This matter concerns a civil petition challenging the rejection of a plaint by the trial court, which had concluded that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent-bank was governed by the master-servant relationship, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court in favor of the Federal Service Tribunal. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the trial court's order to be self-contradictory. The Court held that even if a master-servant relationship exists, the rejection of the plaint on the basis of the Federal Service Tribunal's jurisdiction was legally flawed in this context. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner's claim in the civil suit was not predicated upon the terms and conditions of service, which is the prerequisite for invoking the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders, restored the suit to its original position, and directed the parties to appear before the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the law. The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed.
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to hear a dispute between an employee and a statutory body if the claim is not based on the terms and conditions of service?
- Is an order rejecting a plaint on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction self-contradictory if it simultaneously acknowledges a master-servant relationship without establishing the applicability of the Service Tribunal?
ORDER
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioner impugns the orders of the learned forums below. The petitioner's plaint has been rejected for the reason given in para 5 of the order of the trial Court dated 29-4-2008. For convenience the said paragraph is reproduced as under :-- "The relationship in between the applicant/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff is that of master and servant. The applicant/defendant is a statutory body and in case of dispute in between the master and servant the appropriate forum is Federal Service Tribunal and not the civil court. This court lacks jurisdiction. The application is accepted and consequently the plaint is returned. The file of this Court is consigned to the record room after preparation."
2. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank was unable to defend the aforesaid order and acknowledged that it was self-contradictory. It is clear that once the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent bank was held to be that of master and servant, the petitioner's plaint could not have been rejected on the ground that the appropriate forum in the matter was the Federal Service Tribunal. In any event, the claim which is being agitated by the petitioner through his civil suit is not based on his terms and conditions of service. We are thus clear that the plaint filed by the petitioner was wrongly rejected by the trial Court and the petitioner's approach to the higher forums was also wrongly declined.
3. In view of the foregoing circumstances, the impugned order as well as the order of the trial Court dated 29-4-2008 are set aside. The petitioner's suit shall be deemed to be pending before the trial Court. Since both the sides are represented, they are directed to appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge Lahore on 4-6-2011 so that the petitioner's suit can be resurrected and dealt with in accordance with law. This petition is converted into appeal and allowed.