Case Details

Citation(s)
2001 SLG 2260 2001 SLD 2260 2001 PLC 721
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions Nos.226 L and 446 L of 2001, decision dated: 18-05-2001
MUNIR A. SHEIKH AND HUMID ALI MIRZA, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED and others

VS

ABDUL JABBAR and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Discretion Arbitrary exercise of discretion Remedy Exercise of discretion in any matter within its competence by a Court or Tribunal was always subject to correction by appellate forum available against the orders of the Court and if in appeal, it was found that the discretion had been exercised either arbitrarily, whimsically or on consideration of extraneous matters, the same could be interfered with. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S.25 A Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5 & 14 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3) Industrial dispute Condonation of delay Mistake of Court Respondent was a Bank employee who was dismissed from service Order of dismissal was assailed in civil suit and the same was dismissed by Trial Court During the pendency of appeal before Appellate Court, was pronounced by Supreme Court whereby right to approach Labour Court was given to the Bank employees Appeal was withdrawn and grievance petition was filed Labour Court condoned the delay and reinstated the respondent but Labour Appellate Tribunal reversed the finding of Labour Court and dismissal order was maintained High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution allowed the petition and restored the order passed by Labour Court Contention of the petitioner was that the respondent's grievance petition was time barred as the was passed by Supreme Court in April, 1987, whereas the appeal was withdrawn on 12 11 1987 Validity Lower Appellate Court before whom the of Supreme Court was produced was obliged under duty to give effect to it but the same did not pass any order to that effect, delay in the case was also attributable to the Appellate Court Where order of dismissal of the respondent from service was found to have been passed nor by the competent person, it was a fit case for condonation of delay Labour Court did not commit any illegality nor acted arbitrarily or whimsically and the same was passed on relevant considerations Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order passed by Labour Court and upheld by High Court Leave to appeal was refused. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Mahmood Ahinad Butt and others 1997 PLC 550; The…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492