Case Details

Citation(s)
1973 SLG 3128 = 1973 SLD 3128 = 1973 PLD 240
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 1780 of 1966, decided on 11th April 1972.
Presented By: Nasim Hassan Shah, J
Muhammad Abdullah v. Road Transport Corporation P L D 1964 Lab. 743 ref. Joseph John v. State of Travancore 1953 T C 130 held not relevant. Raza Hussain Shamsi for Petitioner. Kh. Ahmad Tariq Rahim for
Respondent.

GUL MUHAMMAD-Petitioner

VERSUS

CHAIRMAN, ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE-Respondent

Law: General Clauses Act (X of 1897)

Section: 16

West Pakistan Road Transport Board Service Rules, 1959, r. 23.4-Words "authority competent to terminate service"-Person appointed in 1956 as Assistant Traffic Manager by the then Chair man, Punjab Road Transport Board-Letter of appointment reciting that termination of service could be made by the "Board or its authorised officer"-Service agreement entered into in 1956 kept alive by the 1959-Service Rules-Neither the letter of appointment nor the 1959-Service Rules disclosing specifically the authority competent to terminate service of employee-Termination of service by Chairman, Road Transport Corporation in 1966, without notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice period, held, without authority and of no legal effect-General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 16. G was appointed as Assistant Traffic Manager on temporary basis in 1956 by the Chairman, Punjab Road Transport Board. Subsequently he was confirmed in that post. In 1966 his services were terminated by the Chairman, Road Transport Corporation "with immediate effect under rule 23.4 of the West Pakistan Road Transport Board Service Rules, 1959 on one month's pay in lieu of notice". This order was challenged in writ petition before the High Court on the grounds: (i) -that the Chairman had no authority to terminate the service of the petitioner, (ii) the Chairman was not competent to determine the period of notice as that was a matter pertaining to the terms and conditions of an employee which the Road Transport Corporation alone was competent to determine, (iii) the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing and (iv) the appeal filed by the petitioner had been rejected by the Road Transport Corporation at a meeting in which the Chairman not only participated but presided over the meeting. Held: According to the Punjab Road Transport Board Service Rules, 1954 only the power of appointment has been vested in the Chairman. It has, however not been stated therein that he has the power to terminate the services of the persons in respect of whom he was the appointing authority. Under the West Pakistan Road Transport Board Rules, 1957, which superseded the Punjab Road…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register