| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 609 2008 SLD 609 2008 CLC 18 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No.645 of 1998, decision dated: 24-09-2007
NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Suit No.645 of 1998, decision dated: 24-09-2007
NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
IJAZ H. RANA--Plaintiff
VS
K.L.M. ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES through Ranju Selvadurai and another----Defendants
Law:
Section:
(a) Damages-------Suit for damage by ex-employee of an Airline Company---Plaintiff alleged his resignation from service to be under duress---Proof---Relations between plaintiff and defendant being that of master and servant were regulated by service contract---Service contract provided for termination of service by giving to plaintiff one month notice or one month pay in lieu thereof---Plaintiff, after tendering resignation had received all his dues and additional amount as ex-gratia and given receipt for full and final settlement of his dues---Plaintiff in presence of documentary evidence could not rely upon oral evidence---Conduct of plaintiff in receiving such amounts without any objection and reservation and issuing receipt therefor and enjoying other retiring benefits and remaining silent for more than six months was sufficient to show that he had tendered resignation voluntarily paid to plaintiff as ex-gratia and accepted by him without any objection, protest and reservations could not be termed as mala fide on the part of defendant---Termination of plaintiff was simpliciter without any stigma---Defendant had not committed any breach of service contract---Plaintiff had no cause of action---Suit was dismissed in circumstances. Chairman P.I.A.C. and others v. Nasim Malik PLD 1990 SC 951 rel. (b) Master and servant--- ----Promotion---Employee has no vested right for promotion. (c) Master and servant--- ----Servant cannot impose himself upon master. Munawar Hussain for Plaintiff. Abdus Samad for Defendants. Date of hearing: 16th August, 2007. JUDGMENT NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI. J:- The plaintiff has filed the suit for damages pleading therein that he was employed with the defendant No.1 in the year 1967 and due to his hard-work raised revenue and gained promotion and was assigned position of Manager in 1985. The plaintiff further pleaded that without any reason the plaintiff was called by defendant No.2 to relinquish the charge of office and abdicate the same to a person of his choice. The plaintiff showed his resentment and protest on which defendant No.2 suggested to the plaintiff to resign from his employment: The plaintiff under protest and economic duress put…
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