NADEEM SHAHID and another vs CHAIRMAN STATE LIFE INSURANCE

' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---Through this common judgment we propose to dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.317-L to 325-L of 1998, 412-L and 413-L of 1998, 472-L of 1998 and 736-L and 737-L of 1998, arising out of a consolidated judgment dated 29-9-1997, passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in ICA No, 665 of 1997 in various writ petitions filed by the petitioners herein, as the points of law and facts involved in these petitions, are similar.

2. The petitioners were employees of State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan. They were initially appointed for a period of six months on contract basis. Their contract of service was extended from time to time and finally their services were terminated on 6-1-1997.

3. The petitioners challenged the termination of their contract services through separate writ petitions before the Lahore High Court. Which were dismissed by a learned Judge in Chamber through common order, dated 1-7-1997. Separate Intra-Court Appeals were filed against the order of the learned Judge in Chambers. The appeals were, however, dismissed on the ground that the termination of contract service of the petitioners was not justiciable in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, in that, relationship of master and servant existed between the parties.

4. The case of the petitioners is that they have been meted out a discriminatory treatment, in that, a large number of trainee executives similarly placed as that of petitioners, have been reinstated in service.

5. Mr. Sher Zaman, the learned Deputy Attorney-General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has made a statement at the bar that no discriminatory treatment had been meted out to the petitioners. He has also given an undertaking on instructions from Mr. Riazuddin, Manager (Personnel), who is present in Court that if any person similarly placed as that of petitioners is reinstated, the same treatment shall be meted out to the petitioners.

6. As to the merits of the case, clearly, the services of the petitioners were governed by the terms arid conditions of the contract, which they executed at the time, they entered the employment of the respondents, in terms whereof their services could validly be terminated, which provided 15 days' notice or salary in lieu of notice. The order of termination does not suffer from any legal infirmity in view of observations made by this Court in the case of the Secretary, Government of.

Punjab, through Secretary Health Department, Lahore v. Riazul Haq (1997 SCM R 1552). The principle laid down in the above case was also reiterated in the case of Agha Salim Khurshid v. Federation of.

Pakistan (1998 SCM R 1930).

7. In view of the above, subject to the statement made at the bar by the learned Deputy Attorney- General, the above petitions are dismissed and leave declined.