MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO, J.- This is a revision application filed by applicant Syed Muhammad Aleemuddin.
2. Admittedly the applicant was in service of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) till his retirement with effect from 26.7.1984, vide letter dated 5.2.1984 from Personnel Officer, PIAC to the applicant. The applicant challenged his retirement by moving an appeal before the Wafaqi Mohtasib, who declined to interfere in the matter for want of jurisdiction. Applicant went in appeal to the Managing Director, PIAC, through Chairman, Municipal Committee Karachi West, but the same was not accepted and the general Manager, Personnel, PIAC, under his letter dated 25.4.1991 informed the Chairman Municipal Committee, West, that the applicant had been representing his case for reinstatement in Service and every time his application was examined by the Management and he was furnished with a reply. The applicant also filed in this Court, Const.
Petition No.D-744 of 1986, against his retirement and the same was heard on 27.10.1987 when it was dismissed on the ground that disputed question of fact about the correct date of birth of the applicant, cannot be decided in a writ petition and that the proper remedy for the applicant to file other competent proceedings in accordance with law.
3. Ultimately the applicant filed Suit No.1692 of 1991, in a Civil Court at Karachi against the respondents with following prayers:- "A decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants that the instructions contained in their letter dated 5.2.1984 of the retirement of the plaintiff and further order contained in their letter dated,5.2.1984 to retire the plaintiff forcibly from 26.7.1984 are illegal, ultra-vires of the service Rules applicable because of the wrongful, illegal and manipulated entry about the date of birth of the plaintiff in the service record intentionally and wrongly constituted by the department as 19.4.1928, the correct entry of date of birth in the service record of the plaintiff is 30.12.1936.
That the plaintiff be deemed to be in service and be eligible for salary and allowance etc, permissible to him by virtue of his post till 4-2-1984.
4. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents moved an application for rejection of the suit on the grounds that the suit was bad for mis- joiner of parties arid was time barred and was not maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act and that the required relief cannot be granted to the applicant as his relationship with the PI AC was that of master and servant.
5. The application under Section 7, Rule 11, CPC, was opposed by the applicant, who challenged the contentions raised in the objections. Under an order dated 26.3.1992, learned V Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East, rejected the plaint, holding that the suit was not maintainablc. The applicant filed Civil Appeal No.42 of 1992 in the District Court, Karachi East, against rejection of his plaint. His appeal was dismissed under the impugned order dated 17.9.1992 by the District Judge, Karachi East. Hence this revision application.
6. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant dilated on merits of the case. He argued that correct date of birth of the applicant was 30.12.1936, while the respondents had got changed his date of birth and had made it to be 19.4.1928 with a view to retire the applicant prematurely. It was next argued that retirement of the applicant was malafide because the respondents after maneuvering retirement of the applicant had appointed their on man in his place.
7. Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Siddiqui, learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that the suit filed by the applicant was not maintainable because he had sought reliefs of declaration without seeking consequential relief of reinstatement. Learned counsel was of the view that the suit as filed was not maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, because a "legal right" envisaged by Section 42 of said Act can only be given by law. It was also argued that there was concurrent view by the two Courts below to the effect that the suit filed by the applicant was not maintainable. It was also argued that the applicant had no right to seek declaration about his reinstatement and that his relationship with the PIAC was that of master and servant as the employment of employees of PIAC is not governed by Statutory Rules. In support learned counsel cited the cases of Raziuddin vs. Chairman, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and 2 others (PLD 1992 S.C. 531) and Burmah Eastern Ltd Vs. Bunnah Eastern Employees' Union and others (PLD 1967 Dacca 190).
8. In the case of Burmah Eastern Ltd. (PLD 1967 Dacca 190), it was observed that it is the duty of the Court to reject a plaint if on a perusal thereof, it appears that the suit is in-competent. In the cited case it was also observed that the language of Order VII, Rule 11, requires that an incompetent suit should be laid at rest at the earliest moment so that no further time is wasted over what is bound to collapse as not being permitted by law. In the case of Raziuddin (PLD 1992 S.C. 531), it was held that relationship between the Corporation and its employees is that of master and servant and in case of wrongful dismissal of an employee of the Corporation, the remedy is to claim damages and not the remedy of reinstatement except that if the relationship between a Corporation and its employee is regulated by statutory provisions and if there is any breach of such provisions, an employee of such a Corporation may maintain an action for reinstatement. In the same case note was taken of the fact that PIAC has the Regulations which have been framed by the Board of Directors in pursuance of Section 30 of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956, but those Regulations cannot be treated as Statutory Rules of the nature, which would entitle the employees of the PIAC to claim relief of reinstatement on the ground of breach of the statutory provisions.
9. The case of Raziuddin applies to this case on all the fours. Learned counsel for the applicant did not argue if PIAC had Statutory Rules governing service of its employees. Consequently the relationship between the PIAC and its employees, is that of master and servant as observed in the case of Raziuddin, and in case of wrongful retirement of an employee of the Corporation, the remedy is to claim damages and not the remedy of reinstatement.-In view of the weighty observations made in the case of Raziuddin by the Supreme Court, I have no hesitation in holding that the suit Filed by the applicant was not maintainable in law.
10. The two Courts below appear to have arrived at the right conclusion and no case is made out for interfering with their orders under Section 115 of C.P.C. And consequently this revision application stands dismissed with no order as to costs.