Pakistan Case Law
1984 CLC 2168

MAJOR (RETD.) KHALILURREHMAN vs OVERSEAS PAKISTANIS

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1984 CLC 2168
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No, 389 of 1983
Date1983-10-14
Judge(s)Sh. Ijaz Nisar
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner's services as a Training Officer (General) by the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation. The petitioner alleged the termination was illegal, mala fide, and arbitrary. The respondents contested the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the petitioner's employment was purely contractual, involving no statutory or constitutional safeguards, and that the writ jurisdiction could not be invoked to enforce private contractual rights. The Court examined the appointment terms, which permitted termination upon one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. The Court held that the respondent is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1913, and the employment relationship was contractual in nature. Consequently, the Court determined that the writ jurisdiction under the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1981, could not be invoked to enforce contractual obligations or liabilities. The Court ruled that the petitioner's remedy, if any, lay in a civil suit for damages rather than a constitutional petition, and accordingly dismissed the petition in limine.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is a writ petition maintainable for the enforcement of individual rights arising out of a purely contractual relationship?
  • Can a constitutional petition be used to enforce contractual obligations and liabilities against a company registered under the Companies Act 1913?
  • Does the termination of a contractual employee in accordance with the terms of their appointment letter provide grounds for a constitutional petition?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 9, Provisional Constitutional Order 1981
  • Companies Act 1913
writ jurisdictioncontractual employmentmaintainability of petitiontermination of serviceremedy for breach of contractOverseas Pakistanis Foundation

ORDER

' The facts necessary for the disposal of this Constitutional Petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Training Officer (General) in the Overseas Pakistan Foundation (respondent No, I). His services were terminated on 13th September, 1983 on the ground that the post held by him had been abolished in the budget for the year 1983-84.

2. The order terminating the services of the petitioners has been challenged through this petition on the ground that it is illegal, passed without legal authority, unjust, mala fide and arbitrary. Report and parawise comments were called from the respondents. They have seriously challenged the maintainability of the petition. According to them the writ being for enforcement of individual rights or for redress of individual grievance arising out of contratual relations is not maintainable. It is further stated that the right urged for enforcement through the writ is not based on any Constitutional, statutory or legal provisions providing any safeguard or guarantee to the petitioner to be removed from service in a given manner, therefore, there is no legal right vesting in him for the enforcement of any public duty/legal duty by the respondents.

3. The petitioner was holding an ordinary employment as Training Officer (General) as compared to a public office such as corporate or1 elective office or municipal position, therefore, the relief claimed by him cannot be granted. The petitioner's terms and conditions of service provided that his services could be terminated with one month's notice o pay in lieu there of and since his services have been terminated in accordance with his terms and conditions he should have no grievance.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the appointment letter shows that the services of the petitioner could be terminated on one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof. The respondents is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1913. The Service of the petitioner was of a contractual nature. His services have been terminated in accordance with his terms and conditions. If at all, he feels aggrieved he may sue for damages but he cannot force himself on the respondents against their will. Since this is a contratual matter, proceedings under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1981 for the purpose of enforcement of contractual obligations and liabilities cannot be initiated.

5. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.

Cited by 7 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.