This writ petition is directed against order dated 4-8-1983, whereby services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect, and in lieu of the notice period he was monitarilv compensated.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Junior Executive with respondent No.1 on 14-9-1967 after various promotions, while posted as General Manager at Karachi his services were terminated on 4-8-1983.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner felt aggrieved by his seniority vis-a-vis one Salim Akhtar, therefore, he had been making various representations, which fetched annoyance to the competent authorities, as a result whereof his services were terminated in a mala fide fashion.
4. I invited the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to address this Court as to maintainability of the petition on two counts. Firstly, the territorial jurisdiction of this Court as contemplated by Article 199 of 1973 Constitution and secondly, the legality of the termination order visualized in view of rule 18 of the Trading Corporation of Pakistan Limited (Service) Rules, 1975.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner on the first count has submitted by referring to Annexures 'D' to 'Q' attached with the writ petition, manifesting that from 10-8-1971 to 19-7-1981 while petitioner was posted at Lahore he had been in correspondence with his head office at Karachi, therefore, this Court has the jurisdiction.
6. I have examined these annexures. They relate to the period while petitioner was posted at Lahore. It transpires that on 19-10-1982, he was transferred to head office, at Karachi, where he continued to serve till 4-8-1983 the date of termination of his services. I am afraid the relevant time for determining the jurisdictional question, would be the time at which the letter of termination was issued i.e. 4-8-1983, when admittedly the petitioner was posted as General Manager, Head Office at Karachi, the letter of termination was also issued from there, therefore, cause of action when viewed in its true perspective in fact, relates to Karachi. Secondly, petitioner's employment was governed and regulated by the Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. (Service) Rules, 1975; under rule 18, respondent was competent to terminate the employment at three months notice or payment in lieu thereof which has been duly complied with and the impugned order has been issued in adherence to the same.
7. In this view of the matter, there is no force in the petition.
The same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
A.A./M-318/ L.