The judgment and decree, dated 18th July 1977, passed by the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi, have been called in question in this revision application. The brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The applicant was offered the post of Administrative Officer in the respondent Corporation as per letter of appointment, dated 5th August, 1967 and he continued to serve in the said capacity, when by a letter dated 17th February, 1968, he was directed by the General Manager of the Corporation to hand over the charge to one S. H. Zuberi. In compliance of the said letter the applicant duly handed over the charge of post held by him. However, he lodged protest with the General Manager on 5th May, 1972, inter alia, stating that he had been appointed by the Managing Director whereas the letter asking him to hand over the charge was issued by the General Manager. The applicant was then served with another order, dated 20th February, 1968 under the signature of the General Managar, informing him that his services were terminated with effect from 20th February, 1968 under the orders of the Managing Director. Yet another letter, dated 28th February, 1968 was issued to him by the Manag--ing Director himself intimating that his services had been terminated with effect from 17th February, 1968. It was pointed out in the said letter, that according to the terms of the employment with the Corporation, the apple--cant was on probation for a period of six months from 1st September, 1967 during which period his services could be terminated without any notice and assigning any reasons. The applicant, in the background of the above facts, filed a suit to the Court of VIth Civil Judge, Karachi, praying for declaration that the order, dated 20th February, 1968 issued by the first respondent was inoperative and not enforceable in law and that he was entitled to his re-instatement in service as Administrative Officer with full benefit admissible to him under the Service Rules. The following three issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge on the pleadings of the parties :-
(i) Whether the dismissal of the plaintiff from service during his pro--bation period is illegal, arbitrary and ab initio void ?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief
(iii) What should the decree be?
The applicant's suit was decreed in his favour on 30th August, 1975. The respondent No. 1 filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree, which came to be decided by the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi, on 18th July, 1977. The appeal was ,allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge were set aside.
3. Mr. Saghir Hussain Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant, contended that according to the respondent Corporation the issuance of letter, dated 20th February, 1968 by the General Manager was redundant since the services of the applicant stood already terminated as from 17th February, 1968. Accordingly the only letter effectively terminating the services of the applicant issued by a competent authority, was the letter, dated 28th February, 1968. This letter, according to the learned counsel, obviously could not have been served in the month of February, 1968, and therefore, the period of probation of six months in terms of the letter of appointment, dated 5th August, 1967 having expired, the service of the applicant could not be terminated in the manner as was done under the letter of the Managing Director. The learned counsel referred to paragraph 4.03 of the Pakistan Television Corporation Limited Service Rules containing the definition of a permanent employee. The said defini--tion reads as under :- "4.03.-`Parmanent employee' means an employee who has been engaged on a permanent basis against a sanctioned post, and who has satisfactorily completed his probation period in the same post or in any other post in the Corporation including breaks due to illness, accident, leave etc."
He also referred to the definition of probationer given in paragraph 4.04, which defines the probation as being an employee who was provisionally employed to fill establishment of a vacant, post, who had not yet satis--factorily completed his probationary period, or the extended period of probation. In short, the case of the applicant was that since the six months' period of probation mentioned in the letter of appointment had expired, he was deemed to have become a permanent employee of the Corporation and his services could not be terminated otherwise than in accordance with the rules framed by the Corporation itself.
4. The learned Additional District Judge, while adverting to the merits of the applicant's case, has held, and rightly so, that the apple--cant had admittedly delivered charge of his office on 17th February, 1968 and the order dated 28th February, 1968 issued by the Managing Director operated as an independent order and was validly issued. It, therefore, could not be said that the said order was based on the order of the General Manager. Besides, there was nothing like automatic conformation even after the lapse of six months period of probation unless the work of the applicant was found satisfactory. The learned Additional District Judge further held that even assuming that the period of probation had expired and the applicant was deemed to have been confirmed in service, then too in terms of the letter of appoint--ment dated 5th August, 1967 the services of the applicant was liable to be terminated by one month's written notice or pay in lieu thereof on either side. No. Exception can be taken to these findings of the learned Additional District Judge because at best even if it may be accused that 8 the applicant was a confirmed employee, his services could be terminated on one months' written notice or pay in lieu thereof.
Mr. Mohammad Naim, learned counsel for the Corporation, contended that the suit of the applicant was otherwise itself incompetent as no relief could be granted to him under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, since the applicant was employee of a statutory corporation and as such he did not acquire the status of a Government servant and no constitutional guarantees were applicable to his case. He placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in It.-Col. Shujauddin Ahmad v. Oil & Gas Development Corporation (1971 SCMR 566) in this be--half. Further reliance was placed on a D. B. Judgment of the Lahore High Court in the case of A. George v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PLD 1971 Lah. 748) where also it was held that the relationship of Corporation and its employees was purely that of caster and servant under the general law and as such contract of service between them was not capable of specific enforcement under sections 21 and 42 of the Specific Relief Act, Mr. Saghir Hussain Jafri on the other hand placed reliance on a Single Bench decision of the Lahore High Court in the case of Mohammad Ashraf Pervaiz v.
Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (PLD 1973 Lah. 425). No doubt in that decision it was held that an employee of a statutory public corporation was not per se subject to general law of master and servant and this was so held with reference to certain regulations framed by the Bank governing the terms and conditions of service of its employees. However, it is clear from this judgment that the above-mentioned two judgments of the Supreme Court and a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court were not noticed by the learned Judge in that case.
5. For the foregoing reasons no interference is called for in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the matter. The revision application is, therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.