| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 4518 = 1966 SLD 4518 = 1966 PLD 195 |
West Pakistan Lahore
Writ Petition No. 1165 of 1965, decided on 21st October 1965.
Presented By: Muhammad Gul and Muhammad Afzal Cheema, JJ
Saeed Akhtar for Petitioners. Sh. Ata Ullah Sajjad and M. Ihsan-ul-Haq for
Respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
Respondent No. 2 in person. K. E. Chauhan for
Respondent No. 5.
Writ Petition No. 1165 of 1965, decided on 21st October 1965.
Presented By: Muhammad Gul and Muhammad Afzal Cheema, JJ
Saeed Akhtar for Petitioners. Sh. Ata Ullah Sajjad and M. Ihsan-ul-Haq for
Respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
Respondent No. 2 in person. K. E. Chauhan for
Respondent No. 5.
Mst. NAZIR BEGUM AND OTHERS---Petitioners
VERSUS
PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS--Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962
Section: 98,6
Law: Railways Act (IX of 1890)
Section: 29,3(7),148(2)
Law: Easements Act (V of 1882)
Section: 60
Railways-Commercial Manual issued by former North Western Railway-Has no statutory force-Paras. 1127 and 1128 of Manual-Entirely in nature of Administrative instructions liable to alteration by appropriate authority at any time-Any violation of instructions contained in Manual-Cannot sustain any claim for writ under Art. 98, Constitution of Pakistan (1962) [Railways Act (IX of 1890) (Omitted S. 29)]. Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 6, Fundamental Right No. 15 Equality before law and equal protection of law-Absolute equality, a physical, impossibility-Right No. 15 cannot be inter preted so as to forbid Government to adopt different system of licensing for different types of contracts. West Bengal v. Anwar Ali A I R 1952 S C 75 and Jibendra Kishore Achharyya Chowdhury and others v. Province of East Pakistan etc. P L D 1957 S C (Pak.) 9 ref. Tort-Principal and agent-Vicarious liability of employer for tortious acts committed by contractor employed to do particular work or perform particular service-Relationship of employer and independent contractor and that of master and servant-Distinction. When the question concerns the vicarious liability of an employer for the tortious acts committed by the contractor employed to do a particular work or to perform a particular service a distinction is to be drawn between the relationship of an employer and an independent contractor and master and servant. To distinguish between an independent contractor and a servant, the test is whether or not the employer retains the powers, not only of directing what work is to be done, but also of controlling the manner of doing the work. If a person can be overlooked and directed in regard to the manner of doing his work, that person is not a contractor, and it makes no difference that his work is piecework. Halsbury's Laws of England, Monograph 959, Third Ed., Vol. XXV, pp.497-498 and Hardaker v. Idle District Council (1896) 1 Q B 335 ref. Railways Act (IX of 1890), Ss. 3(7), & 148(2)-Expres sion "in connection with the service by a railway" in S. 3(7)-Wide in import-All persons even if employed…