PAKISTAN PETROLEUM LIMITED vs AYESHA CHOWDHRY Ss — 2025 PLC(CS) 1450 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

PAKISTAN PETROLEUM LIMITED VS AYESHA CHOWDHRY Ss. 26(b), 42, 54 & 56(f)---Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, Rr. 7(2)(s) & 21(6)(o)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151 & O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Suit for declaration with injunction---Competency---Whistle Blowing Policy---Applicability--Personal service contract---Enforceability---Grant of injunction in a declaratory suit---Scope---Respondent/employee, after being served with a charge-sheet and inquiry notice on the allegations of spreading false information, avoided participating in the disciplinary proceedings and instead filed a civil suit seeking declaration and injunctions, where ad interim injunction was confirmed in her favour through impugned order---Appellant/employer challenged such order on the ground that the suit itself was not maintainable, as the relationship between the parties was that of master and servant governed by a non-statutory service contract and contract of personal service being not specifically enforceable in law---Plea of protection under whistle blowing policy being immune from inquiry was taken by the respondent---Validity---Respondent herself had admitted that she was not a whistle blower and she had admitted that she aired her grievance against the appellant before eight other persons (including the Chairman), which established that no element of anonymity or whistleblowing was left---If respondent's plea was accepted, that would create complete chaos when companies wanted to investigate into misappropriations or wrongdoings and if respondent's logic was adopted, then anytime an inquiry was to be conducted against an employee, all he would have to do was claim to be a whistle blower and seek immunity on such basis, thereby halting any inquiry/investigation into wrongdoing and the matter would end there and no final outcome would ever be reached---Plea of respondent was found to be unfathomable and baseless, as issue of whistleblower immunity had absolutely no applicability---No employee (servant) can be forced upon an unwilling employer (master)---A company incorporated under company law not being governed by statutory rules for terms and conditions of service (e.g. the appellant), would fall within the confinement of the principle of master and servant---Such an employee could not seek a declaratory decree for forcing an unwilling employer to keep his employment, nor could an injunction in that regard be granted---Contract of service in any event cannot be specifically enforced, as per S. 21 (a & b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 ("SRA"), which would also then invoke S. 56 (f) SRA, under which an injunction itself cannot be granted, meaning thereby that the suit was itself on legally weak footing and impugned injunctive orders were not tenable---If the respondent had any grievance about being removed from her employment, a suit for damages would be the legally accurate remedy and not through a declaratory suit for reinstatement along with prayers for permanent injunctions against removal---High Court did not find any legal justification in granting injunctions in the matter or curtailing the appellant from carrying out inquiry against respondent under the law---High Court Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

PAKISTAN PETROLEUM LIMITED vs AYESHA CHOWDHRY Ss — 2025 PLC(CS) 1450 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC