Case Details

Citation(s)
1986 SLG 2336 1986 SLD 2336 1986 PLC 909
Quetta High Court
Civil Revision No. 49 of 1985, decided on 30th December,1985.
IFTIKHARUDDIN, J

ANJUMANEISLAMIA, BALUCHISTANvsQari YAR MUHAMMAD

Law:

Section:

(a) Evidence-- --Appreciation of--Where Trial Court was led away by extraneous considerations and findings thereof were based on opinions resting on speculation and were not supported by evidence on record, such finding held, were not sustainable. (b) Baluchistan Education Code-- ---Art. 51 (iv), R. 5, Appendix XXIV-Directions contained in Code-­Value of--Such directions are mere instructions issued by Education Department for guidance of aided institutions and are altogether directory--Education Code does not refer to any authority of law under which it was framed--Mere infringement of direction contained in any article of said code would not give cause of action to employee of aided institution--Education code, however, confers plenary powers and absolute directions to aided institution to lay down terms and conditions of service. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-- ---Ss. 21(b) a 42--Employee of private managed school--Termination of service--Jural relationship between employer and employee being purely that of Master and Servant under general law, suit filed by such terminated employee, held, would not be maintainable in view of Ss.21(b) 42 of Specific Relief-Act, 1877--Contracts of personal service between master and servant could not be enforced by either party--Characteristic mark of a legal right is its recognition by a legal system--Enforceability by legal process is sine qua non of a legal right. L. A. P. O. Reilly v. C. C. Gittens A I R 1949 P C 313 and Ram Chandra Bajpye v. Rakhal Dad mukherjee A I R 1914 Cal. 325 20 I C 147 ref. (d) Master and servant--- ---Rights and liabilities--Breach of contract, held, could give rise only to two reliefs, damages and specific performance--Where a master in breach of his contract terminates the services of a servant and refuses to re-employ him, only right surviving to such servant would be right to damages--Court in administration of Specific Relief Act could not order re-instatement of servant wrongly dismissed by his master--No declaratory suit in a civil Court would be competent by either party-­Safeguards available to generality of civil servants are not available to servants of a registered company or a…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492