LT. COL. SHUJAUDDIN AHMAD vs OIL & GAS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.----The petitioner, who retired as a It.-Col. From the Pakistan Army in the year 1956, was appoint--ed from the 1st of January 1962, as Admin1strative Manager of the respondent-Corporation on the basis of a contract for a period of 5 years.

2. Under one of the terms of this contract his employment could be terminated at any time by the Corporation without assigning any reason on three months' notice or three months' pay in lieu thereof. In September 1965, the petitioner was relieved to take up active duty in the Army but on his return from there he was on the 20th June 1966, again re-employed as officer on Special Duty by the Corporation. His contract of service, which expired on 31st of December 1966, was renewed on the 1st of January 1967, for another period of five years on the same terms and conditions by an agreement executed on the 3rd of October 1967.

3. Thereafter, however, his misfortunes started. He was at first removed from the office of Chief Stores Officer, then he was threatened with termination of service, and on the 22nd of September 1968, his services were actually terminated and he was given three months' pay in lieu of notice. He filed suits to challenge each of these actions. The last of the suits was No. 1410 of 1968.

4. In this suit he sought for a declaration that the respondent Corporation's action terminating his services was void, invalid and inoperative. He also sought for a permanent injunction for restraining the respondent from giving effect to its order terminat--ing his services.

5. He applied along with the plaint also for a temporary injunction. This was refused by the trial Court, but on appeal the District Judge granted a temporary injunction pending the disposal of the suit by his order of the 18th October 1969. In revision, however, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Seat, set aside the order of the learned District Judge on the ground that the order had been made in disregard of decisions of the superior Courts, including this Court, in the cases of Chairman of East Pakistan, Development Corporation v. Rustam Ali (PLD 1966 SC 848), Lahore Central Co-operative Bank Limited v. Pir Saifullah Shah (PLD 1959 SC (Pak.)210) and Zainul Abedin v. Multan Central Co-operative Bank Limited (PLD 1966 SC 445).

6. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and it is contended on his behalf that the learned Judge in the High Court was wrong in taking the view that the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court cited above was applicable in this case. According to him, the respondent-Corporation was in all respects a Govern--ment Department, for, the Government contributed the entire capital of the Corporation, appointed all its Directors and could remove them at its discretion. The Board of Directors of the Corporation also functioned subject to the instructions of the Central Government.

7. It had no power even to borrow or to raise funds without the consent in writing of the Central Government.

8. In these circumstances, it is urged that the respondent --Corporation being under the executive control of the Government was performing functions of the Government and, therefore, every one, who was employed by the Corporation, was under, Article 176 of the Constitution, a person holding a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Centre, to whom the guarantees given by Article 177 applied. Service in the Corporation was also, it is contended, service of Pakistan within the meaning of Article 242 of the Constitution of 1962.

9. We are unable to agree with this contention. The provisions of the statutes, under which the respondent-Corporation, the East Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation and other statutory bodies had been created in Pakistan, are not radically different. There too the Government holds the bulk of the shares, appoints a Managing Director and Chairman of the Board, audits the accounts of the statutory Corporations through its own appointed Auditors and has the power to direct those Corporations to carry out its instructions.

10. The cons1stent view of this Court hithertofore has been that the employees of such statutory Corporations do not acquire the status of Government servants nor are the guarantees given by the Constitution applicable in their case. The High Court was, therefore, in our view, right in vacating the order of interim' injunction, for according to the law of Master and Servant, a contract of service cannot be specifically enforced. It follows, therefore, that no temporary injunction can either be granted in such case. This petition is, accordingly dismissed.