Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 2688 2021 SLD 2688 2021 SCMR 1213
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2016, decision dated: 26th April,2021, hearing date: 26th April, 2021. (Against order dated30.09.2015 of High Court of Sindh at Karachi, passed in C.P.No. D-95 of 2011)
IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Shahid Anwar Bajwa, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.Syed Rafaqat H. Shah, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No.1.

ALLIED BANK LIMITEDVSZULFIQAR ALI SHAR AND OTHErs

Law: Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Section: 12(3)

(a) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--- ----S.O. 12(3)---Termination of employment in simpliciter---Scope---Employee convicted and sentenced for a criminal offence subsequently acquitted by the Appellate Court---Employer terminating services of employee---Whether the termination of services of such employee required the process of issuing a show cause notice, holding a regular inquiry and the passing of a proper order by the competent authority after granting him a personal hearing or, was his termination simpliciter not requiring the said process---Held, that respondent-employee was accused of an offence, an FIR was lodged against him and he was arrested and later convicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction; he remained incarcerated for more than 6 years during which time he was not available to perform services as a cashier for the appellant-Bank (employer) for which he had originally been employed---Furthermore, the respondent-employee was holding the said post at the time when he got involved in the criminal offence---Courts below misinterpreted the respondent’s letter of termination as one of dismissal from service for misconduct which was not the case as was evident from the record as well as the contents of the letter of termination---Scope of inquiry of Labour Court, Labour Appellate Tribunal as well as the High Court was limited to the extent of determining whether or not the reasons given by the appellant-Bank justifying its action for termination in simpliciter were explicit, clear, enough and valid---Lower fora could not have gone on the premise that the respondent-employee had been dismissed from service for misconduct and the process for dismissal from service for misconduct namely a show cause notice, regular inquiry and order of dismissal had not been followed---Order of termination of services of the respondent-employee was in essence and for all intents and purposes, an order under S.O. 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968, hence, it was a case of termination in simpliciter---Termination of the respondent-employee was not on account of misconduct and…
🔒
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