| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1962 SLG 2735 = 1962 SLD 2735 = 1962 PLD 142 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1960, decided on 19th March 1962.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J., Fazle-Akbar, B. Z. Kaikaus,
Muhammad Fazlur Rehman Senior Advocate Supreme Court Amicus curiae. Dates of hearing : 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th December 1961.
Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1960, decided on 19th March 1962.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J., Fazle-Akbar, B. Z. Kaikaus,
Muhammad Fazlur Rehman Senior Advocate Supreme Court Amicus curiae. Dates of hearing : 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th December 1961.
Hamoodur Rahman, S. Murshed, Inamullah and Bashir Ahmad, JJ Khwaja GHULAM SARWAR-Appellant
VERSUS
PAKISTAN THROUGH THE GENERAL-MANAGER, P. W. R. LAHORE-Respondent
Law:
Section:
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 1st April 1958, in Regular Second Appeal No. 522 of 1956). (a) Government servant----(Railway employee : permanent Foreman Grade III) "Termination of service" by one month's notice, in accordance with terms of agreement of employment, without show-cause notice, and in disregard of provisions of S. 240 (3), Government of India Act, 1935-" void and inoperative"; relevant term in agreement of employment "invalid" (By majority) "Termination" of service tantamount to "dismissal" within meaning of S. 240 (3)-Relief granted : (By majority order of Court) Employee remained a Foreman Grade III in service of North Western Railway "on the date of filing of his suit"-Pakistan Railway Establishment Code, rr. 1702, 1707, 1708, 1712 & 1731 Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, r. 49 Government of India Act, 1935, Ss. 240 (4), 241, 276 & 277 [Federation of Pakistan v. Fayyaz Ahmad P L D 1958 Lab. 500 majority view reversed]. The appellant, a "permanent" official (Foreman Workshop) in Class III Service of North-Western (now styled Pakistan Western) Railway challenged by suit the order (passed in August 1953) by which his service of some 25 years' duration was brought to an end by a notice purporting to be issued under a clause in his Service Agreement, which provided that the service was "permanent and non-pensionable and terminable at anytime, (a) by She Railway Administration on one month's notice or on payment of a month's pay in lieu of notice, (b) . . . . In the same clause mention was made of another mode in which his service could be terminated, viz.:--- "the authority, which appoints him, has full power and authority, at any time, for any reason, that tray to him appear sufficient, to suspend or dismiss the Railway servant, or otherwise punish him according to the rules of the service in which he is for the time being employed." The case for the appellant was that despite the notice clause, in the service agreement, his…