' SAGHEER AHMAD QADRI, J.--- Petitioner-plaintiff Syed Hassnat Ahmed Bukhari filed suit for issuance of declaration with permanent injunction mentioning the facts that he was appointed as Area Manager in the rank of Assistant Manager in Bayer Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited at Rawalpindi, respondent- defendant vide letter of appointment dated 20-12-2006 who 'after having been appointed as such started performing his duties according to the policy and guidelines as well as service rules of the respondent company; that on 11-11-2008 respondent No,4 through an E-mail at 9-40 a.m. Informed the petitioner-plaintiff that his resignation had been accepted, however, the plaintiff replied that he never submitted any such resignation upon which respondent No,4 informed the petitioner-plaintiff that the news about resignation was a result of some clerical mistake, however, it was simultaneously informed through E-mail that his (plaintiff) services had been terminated with effect from 21-10-2008; that the termination as such conveyed to the petitioner-plaintiff vide letter dated 21-10-2008 was illegal, unlawful and ineffective upon his rights and in violation of rule 1.5.13 as no such resignation was ever tendered by him. The petitioner- plaintiff sought through the suit issuance of a decree for declaration that his termination from the post of Area Manager by respondent company was without any lawful justification, in effective upon his rights and of no legal effect. He also prayed for issuance of a decree for mandatory injunction directing the respondent company to recall its termination letter and to reinstate the petitioner-plaintiff in his previous capacity from the date of alleged illegal termination with back benefits. Further prayed that till the final disposal of the suit the respondent company be also directed to keep the seat of Area Manager vacant.
2. This suit was resisted by the respondent-defendant company by. Filing their written statement wherein seven preliminary objections were raised about maintainability of the suit having been filed without any cause of action and as relationship between the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent company was that of Master and Servant, therefore, the suit was hit by the provisions of sections 56(f), 21(b) and 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 according to which plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. On factual side appointment of the petitioner-plaintiff on contractual basis was admitted and termination of services was also admitted as agitated by the petitioner-plaintiff in the suit. The learned trial court in view of the preliminary objections raised by the respondent-defendant company about maintainability of the suit framed the following issue-- -
(1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and this court has jurisdiction to entertain the in hand suit? OPD
(2) Relief.
3. After hearing both sides the learned trial court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12-12- 2008 while deciding Issue No,1 against the petitioner- plaintiff dismissed the suit being not maintainable with the observation that the petitioner-plaintiff may file suit for damages against respondent-defendant company to redress his grievance. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner- plaintiff preferred an appeal which was decided by the learned Additional District Judge while upholding the finding of the learned trial court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-plaintiff vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12-5-2009. Hence, this civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff while referring the factual aspect as agitated through the plaint and documents annexed argued that it was admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as Area -Manager vide contract appointment letter dated 20-12-2006. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner performed his duties to the best of his ability when suddenly he received through E-mail on 11-11-2008 information that his resignation was accepted. Learned counsel submits that as the petitioner did not submit any resignation, therefore, he controverted that information which was accepted by the respondent company and that resignation was shown having no effect, however, it was informed to the petitioner that his services were terminated with effect from 21-10-2008; that the termination order issued by the respondent company was illegal, without any lawful justification and ineffective upon the rights of the petitioner. Learned counsel argued that both the courts failed to consider basic questions involved in the suit and the view as taken by the Superior Courts on the point of relationship of Master and Servant and a remedy available to a person effected. Learned counsel argued that in view of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act any person entitled to any legal character or right or to any property may institute any suit against any person denying his right or title to such character or right and court may in its discretion authorize to issue any such declaration; that in the present case petitioner's right to continue service was denied by the respondent company hence he was entitled for. Issuance of a decree for declaration in this respect; that bar contained under section 56 of the Specific Relief Act in the circumstances was not available; that the bar tinder section 56(d) ibid was only in respect of injunction for performance of duties of a department i.e, any department of Central or Provincial Government; that the relationship of Master and Servant as has been held by both the courts below did not exist between the petitioner and respondent company rather it was governed by the Rules framed by the company itself; that both the courts below did not advert to these aspects even otherwise the terms Master and Servant is declared derogatory to human dignity and could not be found sustainable. Reference in this respect is made to Ghulam Mustafa Khairati v.
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary., Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and another (2005 PLC (C.S) 417, Muhammad Mushtaq v. Chancellor, Government College University, Faisalabad (2005 PLC (C.S) 1300 and Dr, Lateef Siddiqui v. State Petroleum Refining and Petro Chemical Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. (PERAC), Karachi and 2 others (1997 PLC (C.S) 1014) prayed that the findings passed by the learned trial court upheld by the learned appellate Court be reversed on Issue No,1 and suit be remanded to the trial court to dispose it of on merits.
5. Conversely; learned counsel representing respondent company has vehemently opposed this civil revision on the grounds that the services of the petitioner were hired by the respondent company vide agreement dated 20-12-2006; that petitioner's services were governed under the terms and conditions of the said letter and according to para-6 of the contract appointment letter petitioner's services were liable to be terminated without assigning any reason by giving one month's notice in writing or on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice by either side and even in case of misconduct no such prior notice was required; that petitioner's services were terminated while giving him an option to pay one month salary, therefore, it was not liable to be set aside as no such right existed in favour of the petitioner nor he was acquiring any legal status/right as provided under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act; that the said contract was not enforceable under section 21(b) ibid, therefore, on the point of maintainability of the suit the learned trial court rightly framed preliminary Issue No,1 and decided the same in favour of the respondent company and it was rightly upheld by the learned appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 12-12- 2008. Learned counsel argued that as services of the petitioner were hired through contract basis, therefore, its violation if at all can only be challenged through filing of a suit for damages to prove that any one of the conditions of the contract was violated by the respondent company. Learned counsel referred Holgar HA /A v. Comset Services Limited and another (2007 MLD 863), M/s Malik and Haq and another v. Muhammad Shamsul Islam Chowdhury and 2 others (PLD 1961 SC 531), Syed Aziz Ahmad v. M/s Bolan Bank Limited through President (2002 CLC 857) and Gool Bano and another v. Aurangzeb (2000 CLC 1796) and prayed that concurrent findings on facts and law in the circumstances cannot be interfered. Prayed that this civil revision be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed as Area Manager vide letter of appointment dated 20- 12-2006 copy whereof is available at pages 57 to 59 of the present file. Para-6 of the appointment letter is hereby reproduced: "6. PROBATIONARY PERIOD.--- Although there is six months probation for the management category in the Company but as a special case no probation is given to you and you shall be treated as confirmed employee from the date of joining. Your services may be terminated without assigning any reason by giving one month's notice in writing, or on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice by either side, except incase your committing any misconduct when no such notice will be required."
8. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide letter dated 21-10-2008 which is hereby reproduced:--- "You will be paid one month's salary in lieu of due notice beside other dues as per the rules of the company. You may collect your full and final settlement dues from the HR/Accounts department as soon as possible after producing the necessary clearance certificate."
9. According to the terms and conditions of letter of appointment and its para-6 petitioner services could have been terminated at any time subject to prior issuance of one month's notice in writing or on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice which procedure has been shown adopted by the respondent company.
10. Petitioner while giving factual details in the plaint asserted that at first instance he was informed that his resignation was accepted but when he confronted the situation that he never submitted any such resignation to the respondent company then its factual aspect was accepted and subsequently it was informed that his services were terminated since 21-10-2008. No doubt the correspondence took place between the petitioner and the respondent company. On 11-11-2008 and his services were shown terminated since 21-10-2008 but in the light of terms and conditions of contract letter of appointment specially para-6 if seen it is mentioned that petitioner services could have been terminated at any time without assigning any reason only with the condition that he be paid one month's salary or one month's notice prior to issuance of any such termination.
11. Admittedly petitioner was a contract employee. The rules referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner as agitated in the plaint are internal rules framed by the respondent company and these have no status of statutory rules as required in case of statutory Corporations Companies, etc. It has consistently been held by the Hon'ble Superior Courts of this country since the passing of a judgment cited as Messrs Malik and Haq and another v. Muhammad Shamsul Islam Chowdhury and 2 others (PLD 1961 SC 531) that termination of services a contract employee does not create any right of reinstatement as an unwilling master cannot be directed/forced to accept the services of a servant/employee to continue with his duties in that eventuality whole of the purpose of appointment of servant/employee will be frustrated as his (her) services are to be benefited by the master for his (her) best interest. Even otherwise under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 a declaration only can be passed in respect of status or right of a person if he has any title or legal character or right to any property, etc. The rights and liabilities of the petitioner only flows from the contract/letter of appointment which itself stipulates conditions for termination of the services of the petitioner, which procedure was followed by the respondent company rightly or wrongly, however, petitioner's services were terminated. If the petitioner has any grievance on his termination of the services then he may sue the respondent company for damages. He cannot claim any vested right to be appointed as Area Manager vide letter of appointment dated 20-12- 2006. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments i.e, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) through Chairman and others v. Nasir Jamal Malik and others (2001 SCMR 934) is not applicable. In fact that judgment was passed keeping in view the rules framed for statutory Corporations. Respondent-company is a private company thus finding of the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court on Issue No,1 are lawful and justified does not call for interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C.
Resultantly, this civil revision, being devoid of any merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs.